Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Turdeau Paid FOUR Terrorists Over $10M Each - Not Only Omar Khadr!

From the CBC (Communist Bullshit Clownshow) here:

Ottawa pays $31.3M to Canadian men tortured in Syria

Muayyed Nureddin, left, Abdullah Almalki, centre, and Ahmad Elmaati were wrongfully accused of links to terrorism and tortured in Syria and Egypt. (Canadian Press)
The Liberal government has paid a total of close to $31.3 million in settlements to three Canadian men wrongfully accused of links to terrorism and tortured in Syria— 15 years and two federal inquiries after their detentions, sources confirmed to CBC News.
Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin will split $31.25 million, but it's not clear from officials how much each man received.
In March, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland issued a statement saying the government had reached a settlement with the three men and apologized.
The amount of compensation going to three men was first reported by Le Devoir.
El Maati, a former truck driver from Toronto, was arrested in November 2001 after he flew to Syria to celebrate his wedding.  He was later transferred to Egypt, spending a total of 26 months in prison.
Almalki, an electronics engineer in Ottawa, was detained in Syria in 2002 and held for 22 months.
Nureddin, a Toronto geologist, was detained by Syrian officials in December 2003 as he crossed the border from Iraq, where he was visiting family. He was held for 34 days in Syria in late 2003 and early 2004.
Philip Tunley, the lawyer for Almalki, El Maati and Nureddin, refused to comment on the story.

'Their lives got destroyed'

All three said they were imprisoned, tortured, accused of links to al-Qaeda and told by their interrogators that information about them had come from the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The men have denied any links to al-Qaeda.
A 2008 federal inquiry found the actions of Canadian officials contributed indirectly to the torture of three men.
"They caused the torture to happen, they caused the detention to happen," Almalki told CBC's The Fifth Estate in June 2016. "They caused huge losses in my business. My brothers, their lives got destroyed. My kids, their lives got destroyed."
The men had each filed a $100-million lawsuit against the government 10 years ago, but put their requests on hold ahead of the inquiry by Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci.

Canadian co-operation 

Their lawyers eventually won a lengthy court battle against the RCMP and CSIS to gain access to thousands of heavily redacted files, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pages.
CBC News obtained exclusive access to some 18,000 pages, which showed Canadian law enforcement officials not only knew three Canadians were being tortured in Syrian jails in a post-9/11 crackdown, but also co-operated with Syrian officials in their interrogations.
The files also show that a Canadian ambassador helped to deliver questions the RCMP and CSIS wanted put to the Canadians imprisoned in Syria, a country with a dismal human rights record.
"I was shocked that my country, which was supposed to work for my safety, let me end up in the torture chamber," Nureddin told The Fifth Estate last year.
"My reputation has been damaged."
On Thursday, Goodale said the objective is for the three men to get on with their lives now.
"The negotiation, with respect to settlements, is by its nature confidential as per the specific individuals," he said.
Conservative justice critic Rob Nicholson said he didn't know all the details of the case but, "anybody who was tortured, anybody who was imprisoned because of false, incorrect information deserves to be compensated," he said.
Maher Arar, another Canadian arrested and tortured in Syria, received an apology and a $10.5-million settlement from the federal government in 2007.

Donald Trump - the Rothschild's Globalist Stealth Candidate

From here:

How Rothschild Inc. Saved Donald Trump

A Multi-Decade Strategy to Transform America
By JC Collins
Post 2016 Election Update - Trumps New World Order
Donald Trump has been calling the United Nations weak and incompetent while stating that NATO is obsolete.  Both are suggestive of a changing world in which the role of the United States will be consolidated within a larger global governance framework.  This framework will be structured around the multilateral mandates of a new monetary system and the objectives of the UN’s 2030 Agenda.
In 2005 Trump said “I have to start by saying that I’m a big fan, a very big fan, of the United Nations and all it stands for.”  This statement would appear to stand in contrast to the recent campaign announcements in front of an AIPAC crowd in which Trump spoke more truthful. “The United Nations is not a friend of democracy.  It’s not a friend to freedom.  It’s not even a friend to the United States of America, where we all know, it has its home.  And it surely isn’t a friend to Israel.
This apparent flip-flop on the United Nations serves as a method of cognitive dissonance, and was promoted by USA Today back in March, ensuring that attention was given to Trumps 2005 statement.  The other often reported flip-flops of Donald Trump serve the exact same purpose of cognitive dissonance, and are a constant focus of attention in the mainstream media.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological methodology where a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, are manufactured.  The internal diametric which develops causes extreme mental and emotional discomfort, which further leads to one of the opposing positions being adjusted for the purpose of restoring cognitive balance.
Cognitive dissonance can exist as a natural process of mental and emotional evolution but is widely used in our culture as a means of socioeconomic engineering and transforming of mass populations.  Every time you hear the mainstream media suggest Trump is “flip-flopping” on policies or issues, the concept of intentional cognitive dissonance should come to mind.
In a 1988 interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show Donald Trump was asked about running for president and his words and demeanor on the subject of America are verbatim of how he talks in 2016. The talking points and script where decided almost thirty years ago and draw additional dissonance to the contradictory nature of his past and present comments on the United Nations and other politically charged topics.
The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump will establish a modern-nationalism within America which will facilitate the transformation of a culture which has become self-entitled on a false sense of exceptionalism.  This exceptionalism has been based on the dominance of the US dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency.
The false exceptionalism stands in contrast and non-cognitive opposition to the natural exceptionalism of Americans which is expressed through hard work, ingenuity and fearless dedication.  The modern-nationalism will evolve from these past virtues and harness the will of the people as decades of US unipolar dominance is reversed and replaced with a multilateral approach on global governance.
The question has often been asked about American willingness to support and acquiescence to an international powerbroker and the United Nations.  Never has it been considered that American nationalism would be used against it as a form of methodical mass transformation. The media attention which is being provided to Trump, though unfavorable for the most part, serves as a strong platform for the Trump message to be promoted and spread.
The cognitive dissonance which is further manufactured between the opposing positions of Trump and Clinton ensures that the positions of either can be fostered upon the people with a quick tweak here and an unseen nudge there.  The place of balance between both can be reconciled in a vast number of creative and effective ways.  This balance can also be engineered if a third opposing or replacement candidate were to enter the race on either side.
Considering the time and labor which has gone into building the Donald Trump character it is difficult to imagine that he will not become the next president.  The case can be made that an equal amount of effort has gone into the Hillary Clinton public image, and the feminist trend towards symbolic androgyny would surely support the rise of a female leader.
But there is something about the Trump brand which is suggestive of a longer and more strategized approach.  This multi-decade tailoring started in the 1980’s with the initial cultural injection of Donald Trump.  There has been much written about this time period but little attention is provided to the obvious manufactured aspects of the Trump image.
In the early 1980’s Donald Trump was an up and coming real estate developer in New York.  There was no connection between the Trump name and casinos or gambling.  The obvious nature of the name Trump and its definition related to gambling and card games foretold of the massive empire which would develop in the coming years.
In 1987 Donald Trump purchased his first casino interests when he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International.  Resorts International has a sordid history which began in the early 1950’s when it evolved from a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities.
The socioeconomic engineering benefits of mass population manipulation through means of drug addiction, gambling, and other vices, far outweigh those provided by money laundering alone. It can be assumed that money laundering acted as a secondary advantage in much the same way that the subjugation of the Chinese population through the spread of opium financially benefited the East India Trading Company centuries before.
On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild.
Michael Collins Piper, in his book The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America has done an excellent job of describing the relationship between Donald Trump and Resorts International.  The following excerpt sums up the relationship:
“In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.
“Trump soon became a household name, with his colorful personality and his insistence upon naming a variety of luxury hotels, apartment houses and other commercial ventures after himself. But while the name “Trump” appeared in the headlines, the names of the real movers behind Resorts International remained hidden from public view.
The support of the Rothschild’s would become even more apparent.
After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980’s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders.  It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr., senior managing director of Rothschild Inc. that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.
This was detailed in a Bloomberg article from March 22, 1992.
The connection between Baron Edmond de Rothschild, being one of the original principle investors of Resorts International, and Rothschild Inc. allowing Donald Trump to retain “ownership” over the Atlantic City casinos, which saved him from bankruptcy, should not be considered a coincidence.
Great wealth can both create and destroy men of perceived consequence.
Donald Trump landed on his feet when ironically the real estate market in New York turned and his wealth increased dramatically once more. From there the Trump Empire continued to roll forward and eventually expanded its brand into the realm of reality television, the newest method of socioeconomic and cultural engineering.
For those wondering, Wilbur L. Ross Jr. spent 24 years at the New York office of Rothschild Inc. In the late 1990’s he started a $200 million fund at Rothschild Inc. to invest in distressed assets.  In 2000, on April Fool’s day, Ross raised an additional $450 million to invest in troubled companies. The timing of this strategy could not have been better, as this report from New York Magazine stated:
“The 2000–1 rolling stock-market crash, 9/11, and a globally synchronous recession pushed scores of companies into bankruptcy. New Economy highfliers like Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing went bust. But so did Old Economy stalwarts in industries like steel and textiles—victims of excess capacity, global competition, and generous union contracts.”
So it’s of course no surprise that billionaire investor Wilbur L. Ross Jr. would support the nomination of Donald Trump for president in this Bloomberg article dated March 9, 2016.
It would appear that Rothschild supported front men like Ross and Trump do extremely well in the worlds of finance and politics.  Trump’s proclamations to bring jobs back to America will help “….industries like steel and textiles-…” and will support both domestic growth and an increase in wealth for those like Ross who have invested in distressed American assets.
Donald Trump, “…a valuable resource that may be used, especially as a surprise, in order to gain an advantage…” is in fact the establishment candidate for president.  The difference is that the establishment is one based on the international banking interests, and not one based on the interests of domestic American elites, which are more represented by the Jeb’s, the Mitt’s, the Ted’s, and even the Hillary’s.
At no time in the history of the modern world and politics has an anti-establishment candidate been given so much media attention and free airtime. The negative reporting of Donald Trump by most media is scripted as such.  The cognitive dissonance which is developing surrounding the Trump mandate and transformation of America is a strategy which began decades ago in the 1980’s when Donald Trump first began to canvas our television screens.
One merely need watch the Donald Trump of the past talk about running for president to witness the script in its pure form.  All of the talking points about trade deals and bringing jobs back, as well as the United Nations, NATO, and the national debt, all fit within the methodology of the multilateral monetary transition.
It is likely that the plan is just as workable whether the next president is Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or a wild card like Joe Biden, though I’m leaning towards the Donald strategy as the Trump card which will lead the charge of American nationalism towards a global governance framework. – JC
JC Collins can be contacted at
This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As non-Premium content it can be shared and reposted without further permission.

Monday, January 21, 2019

Over a MILLION American Kids UNDER 6 Forced To Take Psychiatric DRUGS!

From here:

Psychiatric drug use is on the rise in the U.S., with one out of every six Americans now taking some type of medication in this category. This is highly concerning given the scary side effects and poor effectiveness of many of these drugs, but there is one particularly disturbing aspect of this trend that seems to get glossed over, and that is the extraordinary number of children who are taking such drugs.
Mental health watchdog group Citizens Commission on Human Rights is drawing attention to the concerning fact that more than a million kids younger than six in our nation are currently taking psychiatric drugs.

While around half of these children are four to five years old, an incredible 274,804 of them are younger than a year old. That’s right: babies are being given psychiatric drugs. The number rises for toddlers aged two to three, with 370,778 kids in this category taking psychiatric drugs overall.
Data from IMS Health shows that the situation only gets worse as kids get older, with 4,130,340 kids aged 6 to 12 taking some type of psychiatric drug.

You might be forgiven for assuming that most of these statistics are made up by kids taking ADHD drugs given how common that approach seems to be nowadays, but it really only accounts for a small portion of it, with 1,422 of those younger than a year old and just over 181,000 of those aged four to five taking ADHD drugs.
Antidepressants and antipsychotics put forth some surprising figures, but the biggest category of psychotic drugs given to children appears to be anti-anxiety drugs. Just over 227,132 babies under one and nearly 248,000 of those aged four to five take these medications.

These numbers are even more shocking when you consider the fact that experts believe these estimates are far too low and the real numbers are actually much higher, due in part to the tendency for some doctors to hand out psychiatric medications for “off-label” uses. This risky practice entails giving out a drug to treat something that it is not indicated for, and the long-term effects of such an approach are completely unknown.

Safer alternatives to giving kids mind-altering meds

When adults choose to take psychiatric medication, it may be ill-advised in many cases, but it is still their choice to make. Children, on the other hand, lack the cognition to fully understand the lifelong impact of such a choice, and this essentially amounts to forced medication. We already know that many doctors have a financial incentive to get young people to start taking these drugs, but why are their parents so willing to get on board? Many of them are also taking psychiatric medications, of course. In fact, it has practically become a way of life in our nation and many people think of these meds as harmless.

The side effects of these drugs are nothing to scoff at, however, with antianxiety, antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs linked to heart attacks, psychosis, suicidal ideation, diabetes, stroke, mania and sudden death. As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s also the fact that many of the high-profile public shootings in recent years were perpetrated by young people on such drugs, so not only do kids have the risk of dying when they take these meds, but they could also take out a whole classroom or movie theater with them.

Psychiatric medications affect a child’s brain chemistry and could impact their development in irreversible ways, so it’s important for doctors and parents alike to reserve them as an absolute last resort. Some degree of anxiety is normal in children as they start to understand the way the world works. Life is full of ups and downs, and children who learn coping strategies when they’re young will have a valuable skill that can serve them well throughout their lifetime. There are lots of good coping mechanisms that can help children with depression, anxiety, and those who have been labeled with ADHD, including yoga, art therapy, breathing exercises, and physical exercise, to name just a few.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Globalists WILL Sacrifice the Dollar to Get their 'New World Order'

Again, as-yet unpublished at Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty, by Brandon Smith:

Trade is a fundamental element of human survival. No one person can produce every single product or service necessary for a comfortable life, no matter how spartan their attitude. Unless your goal is to desperately scratch an existence from your local terrain with no chance of progress in the future, you are going to need a network of other producers. For most of the history of human civilization, production was the basis for economy. All other elements were secondary.

At some point, as trade grows and thrives, a society is going to start looking for a store of value; something that represents the man-hours and effort and ingenuity a person put into their day. Something that is universally accepted within barter networks, something highly prized, that is tangible, that can be held in our hands and is impossible to replicate artificially. Enter precious metals and stones.

Thus, the concept of "money" was born, and for the most part it functioned quite well for thousands of years. Unfortunately, there are people in our world that see economy as a tool for control rather than a vital process that should be left alone to develop naturally.

The idea of "fiat money," money which has no tangibility and that can be created on a whim by a central source or authority, is rather new in the grand scheme of things. It is a bastardization of the original and much more stable money system that existed before that was anchored to hard commodities. While it claims to offer a more "liquid" store of value, the truth is that it is no store of value at all.

Purveyors of fiat, central banks and globalists, use ever increasing debt as a means to feed fiat, not to mention the hidden tax of price inflation. When central bankers get hold of money, it is no longer a representation of work or value, but a system of enslavement that crushes our ability to produce effectively and to receive fair returns for our labor.

There are many people today in the liberty movement that understand this dynamic, but even in alternative economic circles there are some that do not understand the full picture when it comes to central banks and fiat mechanisms. There is a false notion that paper currencies are the life blood of the establishment and that they will seek to protect these currencies at all costs. This might have been true 20 years ago or more, but it is not true today. Things change.

The king of this delusion is the U.S. dollar. As the world reserve currency, it is thought by some to be "untouchable," a pillar of the globalist structure that will be defended for many decades to come. The reality, however, is that the dollar is nothing more than another con game on paper to the globalists; a farce that they are happy to sacrifice in order to further their goals of complete centralization of the world's trade and therefore complete centralization of control over human survival.

That is to say, the dollar is a steppingstone for them, nothing more.

The real goal of the globalists is an economic system in which they can monitor every transaction no matter how small; a system in which there is eventually only one currency, a currency that can be tracked, granted or taken away at a moment's notice. Imagine a world in which your "store of value" is subject to constant scrutiny by a bureaucratic monstrosity, and there is no way to hide from it by using private trade as a backstop. Imagine a world in which you cannot hold your money in your hand, and access to your money can be denied with the push of a button if you step out of line. This is what the globalists really desire.

Some people might claim that this kind of system already exists, but they would be fooling themselves. Even though fiat currencies like the dollar are a cancer on free markets and true production, they still offer privacy to a point, and they can still be physically allocated and held in your hand making them harder to confiscate. The globalists want to take a bad thing and make it even worse.

So, the question arises: How do they plan to make the shift from the current fiat paper system to their "new world order" economy?

First and foremost, they will seek a controlled demolition of the dollar as the world reserve currency. They have done this in the past with other reserve currencies, such as the Pound Sterling, which was carefully diminished over a period of two decades just after WWII through the use of treasury bond dumps by France and the U.S., as well as the forced removal of the sterling as the petro-currency.
This was done to make way for the U.S. dollar as a replacement after the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944.

The dollar did not achieve true world reserve status until after the gold standard was completely abandoned by Nixon in the early 1970s, at which point a deal was struck with Saudi Arabia making the dollar the petro-currency. Once the dollar was no longer anchored to gold and the world's energy market was made dependent on it, the fate of the U.S. economy was sealed.

Unlike Britain and the sterling, the U.S. economy is hyper-dependent on the dollar's world reserve status. While Britain suffered declining conditions for decades after the loss including inflation and high interest rates, the U.S. will experience far more acute pain. A complete lack of adequate production capability within U.S. borders has turned our nation into a consumer-based society, rather than a society of producers. Meaning, we are dependent on the demand for our currency as a reserve in order to enjoy affordable goods from other manufacturing-based countries.

Add to this lack of production ability the fact that for the past decade the Federal Reserve has been pumping trillions of dollars into financial markets around the globe. This means trillions of dollars held overseas only on the promise that those dollars will be accepted by major exporters as a universal store of value. If faith in that promise is lost, those trillions could come flooding back into the U.S. through various channels, and the buying power of the currency would crumble.

There is a delusion within the American mainstream that even if such an event were to occur, the transition could be handled with ease. It's fantastical, I know, but never underestimate the cognitive dissonance of people blinded by bias.

The rebuilding of a production base within the U.S. to offset the crisis of losing the world reserve currency would take many years; perhaps decades. And this is in the best-case scenario. With a plummeting currency and extreme price inflation, the cost of establishing new production on a large scale would be immense. While labor might become cheap (in comparison with inflation), all other elements of the economy would become very expensive.

In the worst-case scenario there would be complete societal breakdown likely followed by an attempted totalitarian response by government. In which case, forget any domestically funded economic recovery. Any future recovery would have to be funded and managed from outside the U.S. And here is where we see the globalist plan taking shape.

The banking elites have hinted in the past how they might try to "reset" the global economy. As I've mentioned in many articles, the globalist run magazine The Economist in 1988 discussed the removal of the dollar to make way for a global currency, a currency which would be introduced to the masses by 2018. This introduction did in fact take place as The Economist declared it would.

Here is how I believe the process will unfold:

The 2008 crash in credit and housing markets led to unprecedented money printing by central banks, with the Federal Reserve leading the pack as the greatest source of inflation. This program of bailouts and QE stimulus conjured and even bigger bubble, which many alternative analysts have dubbed "the everything bubble."

The growing "everything bubble" encompasses not just stock markets or housing, but auto markets, credit markets, bond markets and the dollar itself. All of these elements are now tied directly to Fed policy. The U.S. economy itself is not only addicted to stimulus measures and near-zero interest rates; it will die without them.

The Fed knows this well. Chairman Jerome Powell hinted at the crisis that would evolve if the Fed ever cut off stimulus, unwound its balance sheet and hiked rates in the October 2012 Fed minutes.
Without constant and ever-expanding stimulus measures, the false economy will implode. We are already seeing the effects as the Fed cuts tens-of-billions per month in assets from its balance sheet and hikes interest rates to their "neutral rate of inflation." Auto markets, housing markets, and credit markets are in reversal, and stocks are witnessing the most instability since the 2008 crash. All of this was triggered by the Fed simply exerting incremental rate hikes and balance sheet cuts.

The Fed will continue tightening, either by rate hikes, asset cuts, or both at the same time. The Fed's purpose is to create a crisis. The Fed's goal is to cause a crash. The Fed is a suicide bomber that does not care what happens to the U.S. system.

But what about the dollar, specifically?

The Fed's tightening policies do not only translate to crisis for US stocks or other markets, though. I see three primary ways in which the dollar can be dethroned as the world reserve.
  1. Emerging economies have also become addicted to Fed liquidity over the past 10 years. Without continued access to the Fed's easy money, nations like China and India beginning to seek out alternatives to the dollar as a world reserve. Contrary to the popular belief that these countries would "never" be able to decouple from the U.S., the process has already begun. And it is the Fed that has actually created the necessity for emerging markets to seek out other sources of liquidity besides the dollar.

  2. Donald Trump's trade war is yet another cover event for the loss of reserve status. If the trade war continues through the next year, it is only a matter of time before China, already seeking dollar alternatives as the Fed tightens liquidity, will start using its US treasury and dollar holding as leverage against us. Bilateral agreements between multiple nations that cut out the dollar are being established regularly today. If China, the largest exporter/importer in the world, stops accepting the dollar as the world reserve, or if they start accepting other currencies in competition, then numerous other nations will follow their lead.

  3. Finally, if the war of words between Trump and the Fed becomes something more and Trump undermines faith in U.S. credit, or if he shuts down the Fed entirely, the globalists are handed yet another perfect distraction for the death of the dollar. I can see the headlines now - The "reset" could then be painted as a "rescue" of the global economy after the "destructive actions of populists" who "bumbled into fiscal destruction" because they were blinded by an "obsession with sovereignty" in a world that "requires centralization to survive."
The specifics of the shift to a global currency are less clear, but again, we have hints from the globalists. The Economist suggests that the U.S. economy will have to be taken down a few pegs, and that the IMF would step in as the arbiter of forex markets through its SDR basket system. This plan was echoed recently by globalist Mohamed El-Erian in an article he wrote titled "New Life For The SDR?"

El-Erian also suggests that a global currency would help to combat the "rise of populism." The Economist notes that the SDR would only act as a "bridge" to the new global currency. Paper currencies would still exist for a time, but they would be pegged to the SDR exchange rates. Currently, the dollar is only worth around .71 SDRs. In the event of the loss of world reserve status, expect this exchange rate to drop significantly.

As the global crisis deepens the IMF will suggest a "reset" to a more manageable monetary framework, and this framework will be based on blockchain technology and a cryptocurrency which the IMF has likely already developed. The IMF hints at this outcome in at least two separate white papers recently published which herald a new age in which crypto is the next phase of evolution for global trade.

Without ample resistance, the introduction of the cashless society will be presented as a natural and even "heroic" response by the globalists to save humanity from the "selfishness" of destructive nationalists. They will strut across the world stage as if they are saviors, rather than the villains they really are.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Globalist disinformation spotlight on — Mohamed El-Erian

(By Brandon Smith, but not yet published at Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty site).

In this new series of "Spotlight" articles which I will be publishing intermittently I plan to highlight specific individuals who work within globalist institutions or who often express pro-globalist sentiments. More to the point, I will be dismantling propaganda coming directly from the mouths of globalists. I often hear people make the argument that alternative analysts should be "naming the enemy" more often in our work. Of course, if we chased that goal every time each article would be longer than a book.

I often suggest to those wanting to know who the globalists are that they simply identify people who explicitly promote globalism. It's not as if the elitists are invisible. They are generally narcissists, and narcissists have big mouths. They are always looking for attention — it's one of their greatest weaknesses because it makes them easily identifiable.

But what is "globalism?" Well, it is a combination of ideological elements. First and foremost, they believe in total centralization of power. This means the eventual erasure of all national borders, all economic divisions, all cultural distinctions. They want a one world system, with a single economic authority, a single currency and a single global government.

This system is sometimes presented as a kind of "Utopia," in which war would be a thing of the past and poverty will be eradicated.  The cost of such trade is never mentioned, though. The complete extermination of individuality, personal choice, free thought and self-sufficiency is the price of the globalist contract with the devil.

Globalists also tend to support programs which openly or indirectly favor population control. This includes programs posing as environmentally conscious. The climate change and carbon taxation schemes in particular are designed to reduce access to energy, making production expansion impossible thereby shrinking the means to support the current or larger population.

Political puppets of the globalist agenda are not always obvious outright. They may at times even attack globalism and pretend to fight for nationalism or against climate change. We call these politicians "controlled opposition."

The easiest way to determine if a politician is controlled is to identify the people they surround themselves with. Who do they associate with? Who is "advising" them? If they are surrounded by known globalists and banking elites on a regular basis, then they are a puppet, either knowingly or unknowingly. Their actions will only ever serve globalist interests, and when their careers are over, it will be clear that their pro-sovereignty rhetoric sounded good while they were in office, but every policy they asserted pushed globalism forward or made anti-globalists appear absurd and dangerous.

There are also many who argue in favor of globalism without really knowing the evil that it entails. We call these people "useful idiots." These rubes are usually suckered into the fold by particular brands of propaganda. Some propaganda appeals to people's sense of superiority or vanity; suggesting that they are far more brilliant than the majority and thus more valuable to society.

Other propaganda plays on people's fear of standing outside the "mainstream." It seeks to create the illusion of consensus (global warming propaganda does this often), in which people are convinced that "everyone knows" that a particular lie is actually a universal truth. The facts might suggest otherwise, but false consensus is designed to make people feel afraid to express their doubts about mainstream viewpoints. They are afraid to be chastised by friends, family or the public at large. And so, they keep their mouths shut, never realizing that many millions of other people might share their doubts and that they are not an isolated minority.

Propaganda relies on calculated disinformation. Usually globalists use other people for this task. They exploit the controlled media, or they exploit controlled opposition, or they use anonymous disinformation agents to attack anyone that has the courage to present the truth publicly. But as stated earlier, most of them are narcissistic and cannot keep themselves away from the spotlight.

In this week's article I will be focusing on Mohamed El-Erian, who has been very active in the media the past month. Some of my reader may recognize the name — El Erian has been an active promoter of a global currency system based on the IMF's SDR basket system. He suggests that a global currency might be an effective way to combat the "dangers" of "populist nationalism."

El Erian is an Egyptian-born economic adviser to Allianz, the parent company of PIMCO, one of the largest investment firms in the world. Many Federal Reserve officials work within PIMCO before or after their time at the central bank, including former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. El Erian served as chair on Barack Obama's "Global Development Council" and worked as deputy director of the IMF in the 1980s.

With this kind of background, it should come as no surprise that El Erian spreads disinformation in favor of the globalist agenda.

Recently, El Erian penned an op-ed for Bloomberg news, in which he presented a number of fallacies on the state of the economy. Let's look at some of the most important pieces of disinformation.

El Erian argues that there will be no Recession

First, let's be clear — the U.S. and most of the world has been in a state of recession/depression ever since the crash of 2008. If your economy must be artificially supported by central bank fiat printing for 10 years just to keep the system from plunging into chaos, then your economy is in steep and permanent decline. Hiding it with central bank stimulus measures might hide recession status in a technical way, but fundamentally negative growth is always threat if the life support plug is pulled.

This is exactly what is happening today as the Fed tightens policy and removes liquidity from the economy. Currently we are seeing a steep drop in housing markets, auto markets, credit markets and stock markets are on the verge of entering bear market territory. All of this began after the Fed started raising interest rates and cutting its balance sheet. It should be obvious to anyone with sense that the economy is crashing, and it is crashing because of the Fed.

El Erian knows he is telling a lie, which is why he covers himself by noting that though we "will not suffer a recession," we will see a "slowdown unless we build pro-growth policies."

Why would globalists like El Erian lie about the real threat to our economic system? For one, they are the culprits behind the crash in 2008, they created the subsequent "everything bubble," and now they are deliberately popping that bubble to cause another crisis. It behooves them to hide instability until they are ready to blame it on a predetermined scapegoat. I have also found in my studies that it is very common for globalists and their media partners to attempt to keep the public as oblivious as possible before every crash.

I suspect this accomplished two things: One, it means that the public will be caught completely off-guard and unprepared for the crisis. Two, it fools the investment community into keeping their capital within the system when they should be liquidating their holdings and running for the hills. Before every market crash including the Great Depression there was a chorus of elitists and media puppets telling people they would be "fools" if they pulled their money out.

As the banking cabal and the globalists sell their holdings and position for the crash, they need greater fools to buy. Retail investors and day traders usually end up being the greater fools.

El Erian defends central banks

The former IMF official laments the idea that central banks might suffer more criticism over policy tightening and the consequences it might produce. El Erian instead blames turmoil in Washington including the government shutdown.

I have been warning for quite some time that Donald Trump has been providing the perfect distraction for the central banks as they remove stimulus support from the economy and deliberately initiate a controlled demolition of the financial bubble they created after 2008. I outlined Trump's status as controlled opposition in my recent article 'Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda.'

El Erian's rhetoric added to Trump's consistent habit of taking credit for the stock market bubble supports my position. While Trump has criticized the Fed for raising interest rates and threatening the bull market in stocks, this comes off as the ranting of a manchild when Trump also claims he is the reason for the stock rally for the past two years, and that his own trade war triggered the "glitch" which has brought equities down the past month.

Ultimately, Trump's trade war and the government shutdown are already being used by globalists as cover for their activities. El Erian is just one of many elitists spreading the lie that Trump is causing a crash, rather than the central banks.

In the meantime, El Erian warns that 1,000-point swings in the Dow will become commonplace — which is the only truthful comment in his op-ed. However, he acts as though this should not be a concern, as if such volatility is normal.

El Erian says the economy will remain strong

Globalists often use faulty statistics as a means to misrepresent the true health of the economy. Unemployment numbers are a favorite tool. Though the official stats show unemployment percentages at all-time lows, the Bureau of Labor Statistics chooses to leave out certain important details, such as the fact that around 96 million people are not counted as unemployed because they have been jobless for so long they aren't on the rolls anymore. The BLS also counts underemployed people with minimum hours as if they are fully employed workers.

Sure, the unemployment rate continues to go down, because more and more people are being removed from the rolls, and more and more people are settling for low wage part time service jobs because these are the only jobs available.

Another stat globalists like to use is GDP. The official GDP number is a farce built on numerous fallacies. The most prominent tactic for juicing GDP is calculating in government expenditures as if they are production. Meaning, the government steals your money through taxation, preventing you from using it to produce, and then uses it on wasteful government programs which are then counted as part of GDP. This even includes such programs as Obamacare.

GDP also does not consider true inflation. Yes, American consumer spend an increasing amount of their income each year, but this is not because they are more affluent than the year before. It is because most goods and services cost more due to inflation.

GDP does not represent legitimate production or the health of the economy, and neither do labor statistics. El Erian is doing what all globalists do, which is misinform the public as much as possible up to a crash of the system. The more fear and uncertainty the public feels during a crisis the more malleable they become and the more power the globalists can take for themselves in the process.

As this series continues, you will find that globalists like El Erian are all pushing a similar narrative in concert with each other, indicating a cohesive conspiracy, not random coincidence.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Monday, January 7, 2019

LOCK HER UP FOR TREASON! Gen. Flynn Targeted For Knowing Hillary Made Millions Running Guns to Al-Quaeda From Benghazi

From here and here:

American Definition of Treason: "Aiding and Abetting the Enemy in a Time of War."

Former Law Enforcement Official: Benghazi Coverup Was To Protect Clinton Foundation – General Flynn Attacked Because He Knew Too Much

(Gateway Pundit) – A former Law Enforcement Officer named Roscoe B. Davis unveiled a number or tweets over the weekend tying the attack in Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation. The foundation reportedly made millions gun running and General Flynn was allegedly attacked because he knew too much.

The tweets are as follows and start with information about the Taliban having US Stinger missiles:

The Taliban had obtained the stinger missiles that Hillary and McCain had hoped to go to Libya –

McCain’s contact by the name of Marc Turi sold billions to the US in weapons and was involved in the Obama plan to give guns to Al-Qaeda to get them to overthrow Qaddafi:

Charges against Turi were dropped in Obama’s last days in office. He knew the US was running the arms through Libya but the CIA surprisingly was not supportive of this:

Hillary was the one who was for the arms sales to Libya and she was out to make millions on the deal –

Hillary put Stephens in Benghazi to clean up her mess after it was discovered that Al-Qaeda terrorists were obtaining the US arms. When he was murdered Hillary and Obama had to create a cover up story:

The story in Benghazi was why Stephens was even there:

Stephens was in Benghazi allegedly working for the Clinton Foundation:

The US was attacked in Benghazi which was bad because Hillary wanted to keep the operation there low key:

Americans knew from the beginning it was a terrorist attack — because it was!

It took the FBI 23 days to get to Benghazi and investigate:

Hillary tried to tie the attack to Turi but WikiLeaks released emails (which we wrote about at TGP at the time) showing Hillary’s plans and ties to Al-Qaeda –

Hillary then lied in front of Congress about the guns running in Benghazi –

General Flynn knew the truth behind the entire situation:

Obama got rid of General Flynn and even encouraged President-elect Trump not to hire General Flynn – he knew too much!

Hillary didn’t care about any deaths or guns to American enemies – she was making millions on the deal.

It’s time that Hillary and Obama are brought to justice.

If President Trump does not bring to justice the people in the Deep State responsible for selling guns to our enemies and lying about it and the fate of four Americans, he will have a difficult time being re-elected!

Americans want the swamp drained and Hillary locked up!

Thursday, January 3, 2019

UN admits 'refugees' are 'replacement migration' for Europe and other low-fertility countries

From here:

Rate this post
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:32:44 +0000
For those of us who’ve long suspected there’s a hidden agenda behind the invasion of “refugees” and “migrants” in Europe, here’s the smoking gun.
In 2000, the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs issued a report, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, which proposes “replacement migration” for countries with an aging and declining population.
Below is the UN’s press release on the report, dated March 17, 2000 — that’s how long ago the “refugee” and “migrant” plan was hatched.
Press Release
NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageingresulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.
Major findings of this report include:
— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.
— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.
— Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.
— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.
— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working-age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.
— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.
— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.
— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
Note that, unlike Europe and other developed countries, the United States is a lone exception. Instead of population decline and ageing, our population is projected to increase by a quarter in the next 50 years.
That means America does not need to open our doors to immigrants, migrants and refugees. In fact, the UN report concludes that we only need to bring in 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.
The U.S. population in 2018 is 327.16 million. That means that, at most, we need to bring in less than half a million (425,000) migrants a year — if even that.
See also: