Gate’s Plan to End World Hunger


Armstrong Economics Blog/Humor Re-Posted Feb 19, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The Tunnel – The Real Story of Berlin


Armstrong Economics Blog/Socialist Re-Posted Feb 19, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

He Did It Again – General Secretary Admits NATO Has Been at War Against Russia in Ukraine Since 2014


Posted originally on the CTH on February 18, 2023 | Sundance 

I must admit that sometimes I scratch my puzzler, when I watch geopolitical influence agents say the quiet part out loud, and yet no one seems to pay any attention.

In case you missed it – a few days ago (2/14/23), NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stepped in front of the cameras for an impromptu presser following a meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

General Stoltenberg openly tells western media that NATO has been in a war against Russia since 2014. That’s when the combined effort of western political leadership, led by the U.S. State Department and NATO forces, overthrew the former Ukraine government and established the country as the center for strategic military operations against Russia. This isn’t the first time Stoltenberg has made this admission.

Against this backdrop, the February 2022 military incursion by Russia into eastern Ukraine (Donbas region), can be viewed as a counter-offensive against the NATO advancement; yet, almost no one in western media seems to hold these NATO admissions as a reference point in their outlines of the conflict.  WATCH (06:07) Prompted:

.

Interview: NATO military defeat to destabilize the dollar?


Click here to wWatch Martin Armstrong’s latest interview, “NATO military defeat to destabilize the dollar?” with Mike Adams.

The Corruption of the International Court of Justice


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Feb 18, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Nuclear Arms no Longer Key to Peace


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Feb 17, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Russia has fitted its fleet with tactical nuclear weapons both in the North Sea and in the Atlantic. The United States and NATO have convinced themselves that they can destroy Russia and China and neither will report to nuclear weapons.  Nobody ever questions: What if we are wrong?

Once upon a time, it was PRESUMED that having nuclear weapons promoted peace. We needed the nuclear arms race to promote deterrence and thus peace. That theory is now completely dead. Everyone has nuclear weapons and now they think nobody will use them and we can now conquer foreign lands even if they have nukes. So why did we invade Iraq?

After having serious discussions about the “what-if” scenario that Russia nukes a major city in Ukraine justifying itself as did the United States with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I found that there was no playbook for such an event and there remains nothing but disagreement as to how the U.S. would even respond. Macron has come out and stated that France would NOT launch nuclear weapons if Russia nuked Ukraine. Macron is not an insane neocon. If there was any retaliation, the cloud of nuclear fallout would be drifting over NATO countries in Western Europe. That would wipe out crop production and unleash further food shortages. We would see instead of a volcanic winter event, it would be a nuclear winter event.

Actually, most people do not realize but during the Obama administration, they conducted a war game simulating Russian use of nuclear weapons in the Baltics. Even back then, there were fundamental disagreements about how to respond. The US policy is to conquer and destroy Russia. They know this. It has been the US demanding no peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Under this proxy-war reality, Russian military doctrine published since 2000 has envisioned the first use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional threat in a regional war. This is precisely what the US and NATO are carrying out right now. Even Russia’s smallest nuclear warheads are many times the explosive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Russia nuking Ukraine has been talked about behind closed doors for months. Those in the military arm have been warning the Biden administration for several months that Russia could be pushed into a corner where they will do the unthinkable. The Biden Administration “prefers” to think they can accomplish their end goal without nuclear weapons. Those behind Putin would push the button in the blink of an eye. They see that as a serious option and believe it would end the war as did Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no clear-cut scenario. Many say it would depend if they used a small nuke to wipe out Ukrainian troops rather than nuking a major city. The only thing that the Biden Administration seems to agree on is just to increase the sanctions. That will only further divide the world economy and increase the chances of world war III. Other are saying that unless a NATO country was hit by Russia, then the U.S. would not have any obligation to respond.

This leaves the door open that perhaps the ONLY way to stall World War III is to take nuclear action against Ukraine in some measured manner. With subs armed with supersonic nuclear missiles just offshore of the USA, they could take out Washington DC before Biden could even make it to a safe room. Perhaps nuking Ukraine becomes the only way to wake up the population of Europe demanding to end this warmongering. All they had to do was honor the Minsk Agreement and Putin would have no choice but to withdraw.

NATO Preparing for World War III


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Feb 17, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Perhaps NATO is starting to wake up. They now realize that they may have to wage war on two fronts simultaneously. NATO is considering what they call a defensive move which is an “Article 5 conflict” but also an “out-of-area” battle. This is showing that NATO is no longer what it was supposed to have been – the defense of Europe against a Soviet invasion that never took place. The “out-of-area” is none other than China invading Taiwan. NATO is simply usurping power that it was never authorized to carry out. This, Article 5 event is an attack on a NATO member, whereas the “out-of-area” is a non-NATO member.

Clearly, we are witnessing how once power is taken, it is always abused. NATO has always billed itself as a “defensive alliance” but it has embarked on an offensive posture with Ukraine and now even Taiwan. Don’t forget, NATO joined the hostilities in Yugoslavia during the 1990s and again with Libya in 2011. Many have viewed that NATO has been usurped by the American Neocons to further their agenda of manipulating US foreign policy. That is becoming self-evident by even considering war with China and Russia.

All our sources confirm that the US has demanded that Brussels increase its defense expenditures. Everyone is expected to chip in 2% of GDP – ASAP. The US is now also expecting that it will have to fight on two fronts against both China and Russia. The Neocons are demanding higher Pentagon budgets now. They simply want war and we have no right to vote on any of this confirming once again, we do not live in a democracy, but in a dictatorship masquerading as a republic.

You NEVER go to war without weight the gains against the losses. What is taking place is the very same bankers that tried to take over Russia I wrote about in the 2000 Plot to Seize Russia, are back after 23 years and they are pleading to wage war and are licking their lips once again at seizing all the natural resources of Russia from gold and diamonds, to energy and uranium.

What is Really the Foundation of Money?


Armstrong Economics Blog/America’s Economic History Re-Posted Feb 17, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Martin,
After several years of reading your blog, I have concluded that Socrates’ prognostications appear to be spot on. I also share your assertion that a study of history supplies an insight into future events due to the constancy of “human nature.” Where we appear to part ways is in the definition of “money.”

In the early 20th century J. P. Morgan said: “Gold is money; everything else [used as currency] is credit.” Hence, paper money, (and digital entries in an electronic ledger) when issued by a monopolist i.e. government, inevitably descends to its intrinsic value: zero.

AN

ANSWER: Human society has recorded our monetary history and you should not confuse irresponsible government with what is really money. I have a great deal of Respect for J.P. Morgan. If you asked the question of what is money in a Babylonian, it would be a silver shekel. Even the Bible spoke of weighing the silver and how Judas sold out Christ for a handful of silver coins. To a Greek from Anatolya (Turkey), he would have said it is a stater. To an Athenian, he would say a drachma. A Roman would have replied a denarius. But when Rome was first forming, money had been cattle which became thereafter bronze. Indeed, if you had asked before all of them, a Minoan, would have it was bronze. Money has been many things including sea shells, and cattle.

A Spanish during the 15th century would have said it was a one-ounce silver reale. The German would have said no – it’s the silver thaler. The British would disagree and said it was the pound sterling (.925 silver). The Americans, not wanting to be subservient to England, adopted the dollar, which was a version of the German thaler. In Asia, it was the cash, then the yen.

Saint Patrick in the 5th Century AD upon his arrival in Ireland, found that MONEY was expressed in human slave girls. He wrote in his Confession, “I think that I have given away to them no less than the price of fifteen humans.” This passage shows something very important. First, MONEY is not defined as the Medium of Exchange exclusively. It also serves the purpose of a Unit of Account. In fact, this becomes the true function of MONEY even more so than what it is. MONEY is a language of value.

Many of the major bankers, kings, and heads of companies were ancient coin collectors including President Teddy Roosevelt. JP Morgan understood banking and credit – but not money. This was a Syracuse Dekadrachm of Dionysios I (405-367BC) was one of the coins from his collection that was eventually sold by the coin firm Stacks of New York in September 1983.  You can download that catalog. People like Josiah K. Lilly Jr. and Paul A. Straub donated their collections to the Smithsonian.

Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1919) loved the high relief of ancient Greek coins. When Teddy Roosevelt became president on September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909, he commissioned the artist Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848 –1907)  to redesign the $20 gold coin and made it high relief as the ancient coins had been struck. The machines could not handle the high relief for the dies would break and they lacked the power of an individual stamping out coins. Thus, the new $20 gold coins had to be reduced in their relief. Nevertheless, we have ancient coins to thank for the limitation on the confiscation of gold in 1934. It was that very reason that his cousin FDR exempted ancient gold coins from confiscation when FDR was himself a stamp collector instead.

I would say the problem here is the definition of money and what predates coinage was the development of a weight standard to enable trade. That invention of weighing technology appears to emerge around 3100 to 3000 BC. This was the most significant turning point in monetary history for it marked the beginning of economic history itself.

It was private merchants during the Bronze Age that created the weight systems. Trade took place through informal networks, but it was clearly Mesopotamian merchants who established a standardized system of weights that later spread across the Western region and into Europe. This innovation enabled international trade across the continent. By the second millennium BC, merchants could potentially trade anywhere in Western Eurasia simply by knowing the conversion factors of a multitude of local weight units. What was emerging was the formation of weight systems that was the foundation for the booming commercial interaction of the Bronze Age world.

From the very beginning, MONEY has been a commodity – nothing more. It simply began a barter. I will give you these carrots for potatoes.  When the Lydian King Kroisos (561-546BC) created the first bimetal monetary system, a gold stater was about 10.71 grams and the silver-gold ratio was 13.33:1 because gold was common in the Turkey. The inflation caused by war led to a gold weight reduction to 8.71 grams.  Fiscal mismanagement existed from the very beginning. This would have been no different than FDR revaluing gold in 1934 from $20.67 to $35 per ounce.

There were competing standards from the very beginning. The Lydian/ Milesian standard began with an electrum stater at 14.2 grams. The stater as minted under the Euboic Standard was 17.2 grams of electrum. There was the Phokaic Standard placing the electrum stater at 16.1 grams. Obviously, foreign exchange dealers became necessary for international trade among the city states.

I can find no evidence of a single standard that dominates the nations at this time. By 530BC, the invention of coins spreads to Greece and now the first city state begins to strike a silver stater at 12.6 grams – the Isle of Aigina. In Greece, silver was common and gold was rare.

In Athens they established the Attic Standard based on a silver didrachm (2 drachms) of 8.6 grams, but as inflation emerged, the standard coin became the tetradrachms (4 drachms) at 17.2 grams. So you can see there may have been gold and silver used as MONEY, but by no means was there a unified standard agreement as to weight. In Corinth, they set their stater at 8.5 grams and divided it into three drachms. Standardization comes only with conquest as was the case with Napoleon. Athens dominated many city states and in 449BC issued its famous enigmatic “Coinage Decree” promulgated by Perikles that restricted other city states from striking coins making their coins a single currency. Perhaps it was just a power play. On the other hand, it was most likely just the profit earned over the raw metal cost known as seigniorage. In other words, the coins once minted purchased more in goods than the raw metal.

China did not use gold. They had a silver standard. The West had to create silver trade dollars set to their weight standard, which was heavier than the standard United States silver dollar. There have been different monetary systems throughout world history. They have not all been based on precious metals. What it always boils down to is the capacity of the people to produce. There are plenty of places with natural resources and the countries are barely even 3rd world. China, German, and Japan rose from the ashes without gold. Their people produced and they rose to the top of the list of economies despite others having gold.

The bottom line has always been that the wealth of a nation is nothing more than they total productivity of its people.

What if Russia Nukes Kyiv?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ukraine Re-Posted Feb 16, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
In the event that Russia does employ nuclear weaponry in/over Ukraine, does Socrates offer any insight as to what effect that might have on Ukrainian food/energy/commodities -production in general (…. let alone their capabilities, or likely lack thereof, to transport, said items from fields/mines/etc. to harbors/rail-lines/etc.); and what type of effect will (potentially, severely) reduced outputs like that (from the “bread basket of Europe”) have on shortages, inflationary cost-pressures, disease-cycles, population migration, and so forth and so on? Having traveled through Ukraine in my youth (around the time of your Israel sojourn; and yes, I had a whole lot more hair than too still), I remember marveling at arable topsoil some 8 to 10 feet deep; what (long-term?) effect would nuclear fallout have on such valuable planting-media, one wonders?

All my very best to you, Mr. Armstrong, believe me; I admire your bravery a great deal. You, Sir, are a Prince & a true gift to humanity!
Sincerely, …. tlk

ANSWER: Everything to the East of the river was the Russian Empire from the days of the Tzar. Ukraine was NEVER a country – period! That is why they joined Hitler who promised to carve out territory so they could be a nation. I get hate mail from Ukraine calling me a Putin lover. They will not respond when I ask do you really think you can destroy Russia and survive? Is it worth losing the country you finally won in 1991 all for the Donbas where the majority of people are Russian? They will not respond to any such questions. They are blinded by the hatred of Russians and cannot see that they are risking it all. They had a country. That was their dream. They are throwing that all away with nothing to gain even if they won – they will never survive the conflict. It just makes no sense.

100 Kiloton

That said, Russia could nuke Kyiv. It would all depend upon the size of the bomb. This would be the destruction of Kyiv with 100 kilotons. The argument inside Russia is that Putin has been too “soft” and he should have gone all in for the kill. The military believes they have been held back and could have won had they not had their hands tied.

This would be 100 metric tons. So you can see, they can nuke Kyiv and “win” the war without destroying all of Ukraine. This is what some are pushing for because they see this as a war against NATO and not just a war now to defend the Donbas. Ukraine has been the fool on the hill. They have listened to the West, and gone head-to-head against Russia which has more nukes than the United States, which cannot defend itself against a hypersonic nuclear missile.

Everyone has gone just mad. There is NOTHING to gain from this and the Ukrainian people will only wake up when it is too late. Zelensky is the Adolf Hitler who has brought death and destruction to their dream of a nation-state. Russia could take out Kyiv without harming Crimea or the Donbas.

Klaus Schwab Outlines How the Transformation Will Deliver the New “Master of the World”…


Posted originally on the CTH on February 15, 2023 | Sundance

A lot of people are going to cite and replay a part of the remarks by World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab, where he outlines what attributes are needed in order to beome the new “Master of the World.”

However, the more interesting, buried lead in his remarks was his talking about the new power structures within global government.  He literally says multinational corporations are the power centers for global government in the same way as nations like India.  First, the soundbite everyone will discuss. WATCH:

.

But don’t get too hung up on that one aspect of his remarks.  The full speech is below, I suggest listening to it all, and pay particular attention at 04:50 where he talks about “the political transformation“.

Prompted, just hit play:

…”We are moving from a world more or less dominated by one super-power, into the patchwork of a multi-power world. With one superpower, a competing superpower, aspiring superpower like India, middle powers, but also rogue states, companies who have become global powers, technology companies – social media.”…