It is difficult to gauge and understand geopolitical and economic events without first comprehending the fact that much of what happens in the world is engineered to happen and with a specific encompassing goal in mind. If you subscribe to the theory that all is random “chaos” and outcomes are circumstantial or coincidental, then you will be lost in the dark on most things. If you think a globalist “conspiracy” would require “too much control” or foresight, I would point out that organized conspiracy by people in power is a matter of history, not of theory. If such cabals were prevalent in the past, it is rather foolish to dismiss the reality that they are prevalent today.
In my articles “The Economic End Game Explained” and “The Economic End Game Continues,” I outline considerable evidence supporting the following conclusion: International financiers and political puppets in Western AND Eastern countries share a deep rooted ideology called “globalism” or the “new world order.” This ideology demands total centralization of economy and government resulting in a single global fiscal authority, a single global monetary system and a one world ruling structure. Obviously, such a pursuit would take extensive time and planning. It is a long-term project, with moments of accelerated change.
The globalists refer to the process of their intended change as the “global economic reset.” A reset of the world’s economic processes is not so far fetched as skeptics like to argue. When an organized group of ideologues maintains control over the currency production and interest rates of most nations on the planet, it would hardly be difficult to manipulate politicians, manipulate legislation or even scientifically conjure financial bubbles and collapses. By extension, it would also be simple to trigger international conflicts if needed.
But why would war be a necessary ingredient to globalization?
War is the ultimate distraction, the ultimate divider and, perhaps ironically, the ultimate consolidator. In the past century, war always seems to follow or coincide with economic crisis events that are later exposed as products of the banking elites and their aggressive monetary policies. And, in the aftermath of these wars, supranational institutions are often founded (like the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund) as “solutions” to preventing mass tragedies from ever happening again. War is a social steroid promoting mutation, usually in an unhealthy way.
In recent years the concept of “world war” has given way to a more insidious trend of constant and sporadic regional wars. In most cases these regional wars have helped to contribute to the steady downfall of the U.S. through accumulating national debts as well as international distrust or hatred. In fact, one might conclude that if we were to look at the macro-picture of the vast array of regional wars being perpetrated by the globalists we would see that all of them combined are amounting to a kind of world war in a different form.
That said, the globalists will need a new and far larger catalyst for their reset, and soon. Why? Because a sizable distraction is essential to the next phase of the ongoing collapse. A pervasive scapegoat is needed; one that can be blamed for almost any negative scenario. This draws public attention away from the globalists themselves as the culprits behind fiscal crisis, maybe so much so that it will take decades before the mainstream ever questions what actually happened, if they ever question anything at all.
The fear generated through an uncertain war also acts as a form of psychological alchemy, transmuting the collective public mindset to accept centralization they never would have accepted otherwise.
Here is the issue at hand — central banks are seeking a monetary reset more than anything else. A monetary reset demands massive debt, followed by massive stimulus, followed by fiscal tightening, then massive inflation, followed by currency implosion that opens the door to a replacement structure (most likely in the form of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency). The credit crisis of 2008 conveniently provided at least two of these elements so far, vast debt and stimulus measures. Today, we are beginning to witness the fiscal tightening phase of this process.
As I have been warning since before the Fed taper of QE, the central bank trend will lead to a removal of stimulus support, facilitating a crushing blow to bonds and equities markets. Now, interestingly enough, the Bank for International Settlements is warning of the same thing as 2017 comes to a close. It should be noted that this is not the first time the BIS warned of an impending crash; they also predicted with keen timing the derivatives and credit crash back in 2007. This was, of course, too little too late for the masses to react in any positive way, though.
Their latest warning arrives on the heels of the December Federal Reserve meeting at which it is widely expected that the central bank will raise interest rates yet again while taking the next step towards reducing their balance sheet. Many mainstream and alternative economists doubted the taper of QE and doubted the hiking of interest rates. They were wrong. Just as the doubts over the Fed balance sheet reductions are wrong. The pullback in these measures will invariably strike bonds and equities in a negative way. Time is running out.
But, the banking elites have taken steps. For example, they have in place a perfect distraction in the form of the Trump Administration. With Trump loudly and proudly taking credit for the stock market bull run over the course of the past year, who do you think the public will blame when those same markets go south as the central bank pulls the rug out? Probably not the Fed or the establishment banks.
Trump has also in an odd way created the perfect rationale for the Fed as they increase interest rates and end the cheap money that has been feeding stocks for so long. With the passage of Trump’s tax “reform” plan, the fed can now argue that interest rates MUST be raised in order to create incentives for treasury investment and to pay for Trump’s intended public works programs and military expansion goals. Meaning, the fed can claim it is not culpable for any negative effects from removing cheap capital from the table because Trump’s actions demanded it.
I would also point out that in most cases in history the Fed has lowered interest rates immediately following tax cuts and reforms. They did this after Reagan’s tax reforms in 1981 and in 1986, as well as after George W. Bush’s tax reforms in 2001. Juxtapose that with 2018, as the Fed intends to continue RAISING interest rates in the wake of Trump’s tax reforms. Meaning, they are taking the opposite action from what they have often done in the past. Something to think about…
Trump’s tax plan itself is primarily a distraction from the real problem. First, when comparing tax brackets from this past year to the intended tax brackets for next year under the Trump reforms, there is almost no change whatsoever for the average American. The only major reductions in taxes are, no surprise, in the form of corporate tax cuts; reducing the corporate tax ceiling from 35 percent to 20 percent. This is trickle-down economics at best, and not a solution to a single problem facing the public and the country in terms of the flailing economy.
Second, why are we talking about income tax “reform” when we should be talking about abolishing the income tax and the Federal Reserve altogether? Whatever happened to that dialogue? It has disappeared down the memory hole.
Trump’s tax plan will do nothing to slow or undo the current economic crisis because the crisis stems directly from central banking monetary policies and interest rate manipulations. Tax reform is far too little far too late, and stands as nothing more than meager bone thrown to conservatives to keep them quiet for a while. This is what Trump’s tax reform does do very well, though — it rallies conservatives around Trump, regardless of whether it actually helps them or not. Much like Obama’s universal health care bill, which has proven to be a continued disaster in practice, but was rather successful at the time of its passage in rallying the liberal base. Trump is certainly going to need a base of public support if he is going to initiate a major war campaign.
North Korea continues to be the most likely powder keg for the next distraction event. Two months of quiet led people with short attention spans to dismiss the notion, and perhaps some of them will double down and continue their denials, but it is growing more difficult to ignore by the day. I would argue that North Korea is the most viable option simply because almost no one expects a war with the isolated nation to happen. The level of complacency despite all the signals to the contrary is palpable.
The U.S. has staged three aircraft carrier groups in the region for the first time in a decade. Major combat exercises are underway, designated Vigilant Ace 18, specifically designed to simulate an invasion of North Korea with over 230 aircraft and 12,000 American troops participating. North Korea has warned of “nuclear war” as a consequence.
North Korea may have the ability to follow through, at least on a limited scale, as they have recently test launched what appears to be a huge leap in missile technology — an ICBM capable of carrying multiple warheads and striking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. How the North Koreans came to possess this technology so quickly is a question everyone should be asking.
In response, the war rhetoric has been amplified. White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has stated that North Korea is the greatest immediate threat to the U.S., saying that the potential for war “is increasing every day.” Warmonger and enemy of the Constitution, Lindsey Graham, has stated that the families of U.S. military personnel should be moved out of South Korea for their own safety, and that “We’re getting close to military conflict.”
So how close is close? I maintain that war with North Korea is likely by the second quarter of 2018. I also maintain the globalists will continue the strategy of multiple regional conflicts and global economic warfare rather than a one-off global nuclear mess that would wipe out trillions of dollars and decades of effort put into infrastructure and surveillance grids.
This would be advantageous to the globalists if they plan to continue interest rate hikes and stimulus removal by central banks around the world. It would help hide the effects of balance sheet reductions on stocks and it could expedite the fall of the dollar as the world reserve as Eastern and European nations apply alternatives like the IMF’s SDR basket system in response to the massive debt brought on by a military quagmire for the U.S. In other words, catastrophic fiscal developments that were already going to happen anyway due to central bank sabotage will be entirely blamed on geopolitical crisis rather than the true culprits.
Finally, will the East step in militarily to prevent a conflict in North Korea? No. China has already stated that if North Korea attacks first, then they will not obstruct regime change by the U.S.
This flies in the face of those that believe in the false East/West paradigm. China has left the door wide open to potential conflict. If the globalists want a war in North Korea, they will create a war in North Korea, and the Chinese have openly admitted they will step out of the way to let it happen. A false flag is probable. More provocations leading to a violent response by North Korea would also be rather easy to produce. So far, North Korea remains the best existing shock and awe event to hide a globally disintegrating economic situation. Would the globalists pass up an opportunity like this? There is no reason for them to do so.
-------------------- "The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861 Posts: 15324 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001