From Brandon Smith via Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Alerts:
One thing that is important to understand about the mainstream media
is that they do tell the truth on occasion. However, the truths they
admit to are almost always wrapped in lies or told to the public far too
late to make the information useful. In the case of the sudden flood of
recession and economic crash talk in the media the past couple of
weeks, I would say it is both an attempt to hide the truth among lies,
and to absolve themselves for not warning people ahead of time.
The fact is, the pattern the
media is following today matches almost exactly with the pattern they
followed leading up to the credit crash of 2008, with one large
exception — this time the agenda is to place blame on a particular
target.
Multiple mainstream outlets ignored all the crash signals in 2005 and 2006 despite ample warnings from alternative economists.
In fact, they mostly laughed at the prospect of the biggest bull market
in the history of stocks and housing (at that time) actually
collapsing. Then abruptly the media and the globalist institutions that
dictate how the news is disseminated shifted position and started
talking about "recession" and "crash potential." From The New York Times to The Telegraph to Reuters and others, as well as the IMF, BIS
and Federal Reserve officials — everyone suddenly started agreeing with
alternative economists without actually deferring to them or giving
them any credit for making the correct financial calls.
In 2007/2008, the discussion
revolved around derivatives, a subject just complicated enough to
confuse the majority of people and cause them to be disinterested in the
root trigger for the economic crisis. Instead, the public just wanted
to know how the crash was going to be fixed. Yes, some blame went to the
banking system, but almost no one at the top was punished (only one
banker in the U.S. actually faced fraud charges). Ultimately, the crisis
was pinned on a "perfect storm" of coincidences, and the central banks
were applauded for the "swift action" in using stimulus and QE to save
us all from a depression level event. The bankers were being referred to
as "heroes."
Of course, central bank culpability was later explored, and Alan Greenspan even admitted partial responsibility,
saying the Fed knew there was a bubble, but was not aware of how
dangerous it really was. This was a lie. According to Fed minutes from
2004, Greenspan
sought to silence any dissent on the housing bubble issue, saying that
it would stir up debate on a process that "only the Fed understood."
Meaning, there was indeed discussion on housing and credit warning
signs, but Greenspan snuffed it out to prevent the public from hearing
about it.
Today we have a very similar
dynamic. Use of the "R word" in the mainstream media and among central
banks has been strictly contained for the past several years. Only in
the past year has talk of recession begun to break out, and only in the past couple of weeks have outlets become aggressive in pushing the notion that a financial crash is just around the corner. Yet, signals of sharp decline in economic fundamentals have been visible since before the 2016 elections,
and alarms have been blaring on housing, auto markets, manufacturing,
freight and shipping, historic debt levels, the yield curve, etc. since
at least October of last year.
So, what changed?
I can only theorize on why
the media and the banking elites choose the timing they do to admit to
the public what is about to happen. First, it is clear from their
efforts to stifle free discussion that they do not want to let the
populace know too far ahead of time that a crash is imminent. According
to the evidence, which I have outlined in-depth in previous articles,
central banks and international banks sometimes engineer crash events in order to consolidate wealth and centralize their political power even further. Is it a conspiracy? Yes, it is, and it's a provable one.
When they do finally release
the facts, it seems that they allow for around six months of warning
time before economic shock events occur. In the case of the current
crash in fundamentals (and eventually stocks), the time may be shorter.
Why? Because this time the banks and the media have a scapegoat in the
form of Donald Trump, and by extension, they have a scapegoat in the
form of conservatives, populists and sovereignty activists.
The vast majority of articles flowing through mainstream feeds on economic recession refer directly to Trump, his supporters and the trade war as the primary villains behind the downturn. The warnings from the Fed, the BIS and the IMF insinuate the same accusation.
Anyone who has read my work
for the past few years knows I have been warning about Trump as a false
prophet for the liberty movement and conservatives in general. And
everyone knows my primary concern has been that the globalists will
crash the Everything Bubble, a bubble which has been inflated by central
banks for the past decade, on Trump's watch, and then blame all
conservatives for the consequences.
To be clear, Trump is not the
cause of the Everything Bubble, nor is he the cause of its current
implosion. No president has the power to trigger a collapse of this
magnitude, only central banks have that power. When Trump argues that
the Fed is causing a downturn, he is telling the truth. What he is not
telling the public, though, is that his job is to help the Fed in this process.
Admissions of crisis in the
media are coinciding directly with Trump's policy actions. In other
words, Trump is providing perfect cover for the central banks to crash
the economy without receiving any of the blame. Trump's insistence on
taking full credit for the bubble in stock markets as well as fraudulent
GDP and employment numbers, after specifically warning about all of
these things during his election campaign, has now tied the economy like
a noose around the necks of conservatives. The tone of warning in the
media indicates to me that the banking elites are about to tighten that
noose.
The pace of the narrative is
quickening, and I would suggest that a collapse of the bubble will move
very fast, perhaps in the next four to six months. If it does, then it
is likely that Trump is not slated for a second term as president in
2020. Trump's highly divisive support for "Red Flag" gun laws, a move
that will lose him considerable support among pro-gun conservatives also
indicates to me that it is likely he is not meant to be president in
2020. I don't think that it's a coincidence the situation is
accelerating in the months leading up to the Brexit in October. Yet
another event that will be used to blame sovereignty activists and
nationalists for a crash the globalists created.
As events are unfolding right
now, it appears that Trump has served his purpose for the globalists and
is slated to be replaced next year; probably by an extreme far-left
Democrat. The media saturation of recession talk also suggests that
this is the case. As in 2007/2008, it is unlikely that the mainstream
would admit to a downturn that is not coming soon. Using the behavior of
the media and of banking institutions as a guide, we can predict crisis
within the economy. Clearly, a major breakdown is slated to take place
before the election of 2020, if not much sooner.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment