Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Why is the mainstream media suddenly admitting to the recession threat?

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: