Posted originally on the CTH on March 10, 2024 | Sundance
Gary Cohn appears on Face The Nation to discuss the finance, the economy and the pain felt by consumers. He won’t say it directly, for obvious reasons, but what Cohn describes in terms of political support boils down to Main Street business supporting Donald Trump and Wall Street Multinational Corporations supporting Joe Biden. That is ultimately what is obvious at a macro level.
I’m starting the video at 03:08 for the purposes of emphasizing inflation. What Cohn says about U.S. inflation is essentially accurate and I have a Cliff Notes, tldr, HERE. However, what Cohn says about tariffs creating inflation is not accurate, as outlined by the 2017 through 2020 results of Trump tariff policy. Cohn says, “No one absorbs tariffs, except the consumer,” this is false. As we saw in 2017, 2018, and 2019 China, Asia and the EU essentially dropped their export prices to retain access to the USA market and offset tariff costs. That’s just a statistical reality.
The transcript is HERE; however, I want to draw attention to a geopolitical aspect that is not getting enough attention. Specifically, the cost of FOOD PRODUCTS and the attached inflation.
Why is food inflation continuing to be a problem? Why is food inflation not just a USA problem? Why are the EU farmers protesting? These questions are easily answered, and yet no one in the Western financial press will explain.
The Build Back Better agenda, known in the USA colloquially as the Green New Deal, carries with it massive increases in cost for energy products. Fertilizer, which needs natural gas, and farming, which needs large amounts of fuel, diesel and fuel oil, uses costly energy products. Packaging, plastics (petroleum derivatives) and cardboard also require large amounts of energy.
The manufacturing (heating, cooling, freezing) as well as storage and transportation of food products also use massive amounts of energy. Additionally, and specifically because of the nature of their consumption, the increased energy costs associated with generating food travels quickly through the supply chain.
Food inflation is always the first thing you notice when the prices of energy products skyrocket. This is well known and not subject to debate; everyone accepts this.
In the past 30 +/- years, large multinational corporations known as Big Ag have created a system where the USA generates a massive amount of the global food supply.
The advent of modern farming fertilizer, pesticides, seed genetics and other farming products/equipment that increase crop yield, has also been a big factor in the capacity of the USA and Western farming world to increase production. As the globe became more reliant on the production efficiencies of the Big Ag “Western world,” they simultaneously became dependent on the outcome. That dependency put them at risk of feeling the impact of inflation when you think about the farm products.
The result was that when Western Ag farming costs skyrocketed, the high cost of harvest outcomes were not just felt in the USA and/or Western nations. As food production costs increased, the higher costs of production transferred into all the exported products. Food inflation was exported globally.
The Western Build Back Better and Green New Deal energy policies subsequently meant the world was going to pay a higher price for food globally. That’s what happened.
The Yellow Zone was responsible for a higher percentage of global food production. The Yellow Zone is also the place where energy policy was changed in such a radical format that massive increases in energy costs were created.
The Yellow Zone (geopolitically the “West”) drove up the cost of farming, the Gray Zone pays a higher price. This was all by design and not accidental. The corporations who supported the BBB/GRD agenda all benefit. The citizens who need to eat, do not benefit.
So, when you see EU farmers protesting against the ridiculous ENERGY POLICY changes of the West, you must accept the USA bears a greater responsibility for creating and demanding the increased prices that farmers globally are having to deal with.
In Gray Zone areas, where domestic food production costs are not subject to the changed energy policy, there is little to no food inflation. However, the more dependent the country is to food imports (ingredients or final product) the more they are impacted by rising farming costs.
Grey Zone countries that can self-sustain on the production of food and have no energy agenda have little food inflation.
The more the country is strangling energy production and driving up energy prices, the higher the cost of farming and subsequently the higher index on food inflation. The two metrics are directly related.
Food inflation globally is a big problem. Western energy policy is exactly why!
Posted originally on the CTH on March 10, 2024 | Sundance
By now, most intellectually honest American observers have accepted the United States intelligence apparatuses are the most political and dangerous institutions of government. All recent history shows how the Intelligence Community (IC), identified by Chuck Schumer as the “six ways to Sunday” targeting group, operate as the extra-constitutional fourth branch of government.
The IC conducts surveillance of Americans, and the apparatuses of the FBI, DOJ and DHS operate the enforcement mechanism for the targeting identified by the intelligence apparatus. The public-private partnership between the domestic communication networks, including social media, and the Intelligence Community are well known. DHS operates on behalf of the IC and the legislative and judicial branches defer to the IC. This is a specific outcome of the Patriot Act authorizing the IC to conduct surveillance of all Americans.
In his interview with Meet the Press today, former House Intelligence Committee Chair, and current Senate candidate from California, Adam Schiff, publicly stated his desire that the IC continue their operations against U.S. citizens and control any/all information that is shared with Donald Trump in national security briefings. WATCH (prompted):
.
The United States intelligence community is the most insidious threat to the Republic. There is currently an information war taking place that encompasses pushback against the constructs of the IC and the control justifications known as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation.” All of these newly created terms serve the function of controlling, eliminating and censoring activity by a corrupt network of government actors.
There is no such thing as mis-dis-or mal-information – there is only information. Unfortunately, too few Americans have an understanding of how and why these terms were created by the surveillance apparatus in order to control information they deem against their interests.
Lastly, Adam Schiff is likely going to be the purple tie candidate supported by the professionally Republican and communist Democrats in their effort to generate an insurance policy against President Donald Trump. It is easy to predict how Schiff would likely be installed in the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) with a specific responsibility to stop, impede and block any intelligence nomination by President Trump.
Posted originally on the CTH on March 10, 2024 | Sundance
The non-pretending reality behind this duo is that Marco Rubio knows Mark Warner participated in an illicit and unlawful effort to target Donald Trump using the intelligence community and the national security institutions which included the DHS, ODNI, CIA, FBI, NSA and a weaponized DOJ-NSD.
There is absolutely zero possibility Rubio didn’t know what the U.S intelligence apparatus, DOJ, Mueller team and his friend across the aisle, Mark Warner, was doing. Despite the SSCI silo that surrounds him, Senator Rubio knew the motives, intents and purposes of every element within this network from 2016 through 2021. Denying this reality is pretending on a level that is insulting to the honest observer.
As a consequence of that reality, anything Rubio and Warner say about the national security status is suspect to an admission they are both selling a story that is based on an entirely false framework about the construct of the geopolitical world outside the USA. If you understand the cleaving taking place between both global zones, West and non-West, then everything Warner and Rubio say about activity outside the Western sphere becomes transparently motivated. Most of their review is complete BS, and akin to trying to obfuscate the reality of the world “out there.” WATCH:
TRANSCRIPT – MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for doing this–
SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and for speaking in the bipartisan way you’re sitting down with us today. How would you both define the greatest national security threat facing our country right now?
SENATOR MARK WARNER (D-VA): Well, I would define the immediate threat of making sure we push back Putin’s aggressive behavior in Ukraine, that we try to resolve the circumstance in Gaza, where you can eliminate Hamas, but also recognize the humanitarian challenge. But frankly, over a longer term, the bigger challenge, I think, remains China. We’ve never had a nation of equivalent economic size. And they are investing in technology domain after technology domain, where they hope to not only be number one, but frankly, dominate the field. And I think Marco and I, and our committee has really been at the leading edge of trying to expose that whether it was 5G or whether it was challenged around TikTok or the the need to make sure we bring the semiconductor industry back, but that China long term threat.
SEN. RUBIO: Yeah I think in a broader sense, I would say that the world is, you know, countries around the world have determined the unipolar world is over, and they seek to challenge it. In China’s case, they want to, if not replace, at least be an alternative to an American led system that’s been in place, certainly since the end of the Cold War, and even predating back to the end of the second world war. The Russians argue that they’re a great power, who are who deserved to have buffer nations outside of their borders that they have control over. Hence, you know, they want a bunch of Belaruses. That’s what they want Ukraine to become, and other places like that. And and then Iran wants to be, they want to export the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East, and they already have proxies operating inside of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. They want to threaten Jordan, Bahrain, and ultimately make Israel an unlivable place and have regional dominance in that way. And then you’ve got North Korea, which is increasingly becoming aggressive in- in the way it’s responding to South Korea in both rhetoric and actions. So all these are interrelated. It’s a challenge to the world order of and it’s led this loose coalition of countries who and sometimes work in concert to challenge not just America, but our alliances.
SEN. WARNER: And I think what Marco just said is, these authoritarian regimes are more closely aligned than they were even five years ago.
MARGARET BRENNAN: On the immediate issue of the Middle East, Ramadan begins this Sunday, there’s concerns that because of a high degree of tension in the region, a spark could really lead to an explosion. Through the U.S. national security lens, how concerned are you about the rising risk to U.S. interests in the Middle East because of the close alliance with Israel’s war in Gaza?
SEN. RUBIO: Well, I think the risk is it’s pre existing, obviously, now we have active shooting going on and people back and forth that always leads to mis- miscalculation risks, and in some cases, hostility like we’ve seen already from the Houthis out of Yemen. The goal, I think it’s a mistake to view October 7, simply through the lens of the Palestinian Israeli question. I think the reason why Hamas was armed, equipped and felt the confidence is this broader narrative, this broader objective that Iran has to drive the US out of the region. It is why they are conducting attacks in Iraq and Syria, they want a US troop presence out of the region completely. So then–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Should it stay?
SEN. RUBIO: Huh?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe that those 2500 troops in the region should say
SEN. RUBIO: I do and the reason why I believe that is because they are not only there on the counter ISIS mission, let’s not forget that group is still existing, and it’s still a threat. But because they sit, the reason why Iran wants us out of there is that are we are stationed at key points that tie Damascus and Baghdad and all these supply routes that Iran wants to dominate, if we were gone, these proxy groups are now be at the border of Jordan, be able to threaten Jordan and ultimately threaten Israel as a result. But I am concerned I mean, whether it’s Hezbollah and up in the north of Israel, whether it’s what’s happening in Gaza, whether it’s what’s happening with Yemen, the risk of of conflict is very real. It’s a dangerous and tenuous situation. There’s no doubt about.
SEN. WARNER: But–
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Biden’s reviewing whether to keep those troops in Iraq in the same numbers.
SEN. WARNER: And I’ll be anxious to see what he says. I do think, though–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think they should stay?
SEN. WARNER: I think in terms of current basis, yes. Because as long as we’ve got these Iranian backed militias, and others, promoting a level of violence, and I agree with Marco in terms of trying to push us out, but I also think, potentially out of this enormous tragedy, the tragedy of October 7, and now the humanitarian tragedy of 30,000, Palestinians killed. You gotta look at some level of optimism- Israel had already aligned with a number of the Sunni states in the region. I was recently in Saudi Arabia, I think they would like to find some level of peace, post the Gaza conflict with Israel, a stronger defense relationship with the United States. I do think we need to acknowledge the Shia driven efforts to not only push us out but also undermine the Sunni states in the region. And there could be an opportunity for a grander alliance, but that will mean the, the violence has to stop. And you know I think we both have a lot of respect for Bill Burns, the CIA director who has been doing yeoman work, trying to negotiate this hostage exchange, which would lead to at least that short term ceasefire.
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Biden wants to establish a port in Gaza to try to bring humanitarian aid in. It’s not exactly clear the cost, the U.S. military role. Do you think that is a good decision? And given what has happened, this tragic incident recently with a hundred civilians killed, some of them shot by Israeli soldiers according to the IDF because they were clamoring for food. Do you see any clear evidence of who is to blame for that violence that day?
SEN. WARNER: I don’t have the after action report. But I do think this, I mean, remember, United States has been the largest single donor to humanitarian efforts for years in the region. And I think it is important that we continue to show that. I mean, the airlift approach is more symbolic than it actually getting relief to most folks. But the idea and I’ve discussed this with some of the folks in administration, of using Cyprus as a staging point where the aid can be checked to make sure nothing else gets in, the potential then of having that aid moved from Cyprus, to a place where we can set up the equivalent of a field hospital that could help provide the particularly in North Gaza, the humanitarian relief, that is both the right thing to do. And I think the right thing to do in terms of, particularly as we go into Ramadan, hopefully lowering some of the tension, but also shows America’s concern for some of the humanitarian costs in the region.
SEN. RUBIO: I would just add one thing to this. And that is, it’s important understand why. Everybody’s in favor of helping innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire of any conflict. I think it’s important to understand the reason why aid can’t get to them. And the principal reason why is Hamas has built this system of tunnels, it’s expensive. I mean, I don’t care if they got a great deal on the concrete, it’s expensive to build this extensive system of tunnels, millions of dollars, that’s money that could have gone to create an economy, to feed people, to build hospitals and, and serve civilians. They didn’t do it. And there’s real concern, and I think, very legitimate reason to believe that any aid that goes in there will be grabbed by Hamas used for their purposes, at the expense of the civilian population. Hamas has a track record of zero when it comes to caring about the lives of civilians or of society in general. They’re an entirely war footing. That’s all they do. And, and I think there’s just real concern that- real reason to believe that any additional aid would be taken- would go directly to Hamas will be controlled by them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you know, that the U.S. Ambassador David Satterfield, who’s handling that, has said, in written letters to Congress, that they have no evidence that Hamas is stealing the aid, certainly not defending Hamas at all. But saying that aid can continue to be pushed into Gaza without Hamas stealing it, the issue is the criminal groups–
(CROSSTALK)
SEN. RUBIO: Well, I’ll just respond personally, I don’t know what he’s talking about. Because how does Hamas get food? Hamas does not have an economy. Hamas does- Hamas- everything Hamas gets comes from abroad, from Iranians and from what they take. I think the evidence is in place that they have existed as an organization without any means of generating revenue other than what they are able to capture from others, that’s just common sense.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but in terms of now, with the aid getting in now?
(END CROSSTALK)
SEN. WARNER: I- I think the- the food and water and other relief aid I think it is- you’ve got to make sure you have a distribution system. But I think I agree with Ambassador Satterfield. But let’s also step back for a moment. And I think a lot of the arms, food, other things that have supported Hamas was the fact that they have this tunnel network, which is close to 500 kilometers. I don’t think we- any of us fully expected that. And they have been able [to] secure that. The fact that we are 140 days, roughly, into this invasion, I think most of us, even in the region, thought the Israeli Defense Fund- Defense Forces would be able to take out Hamas. 140 days in, they’ve basically taken out only about 35% of the Hamas- Hamas fighters, and literally have only penetrated less than a third of the tunnel network.
And one of the things and again, as I think Marco indicated, the extensive network, we’ve had- we brought in some of our experts (unintelligible) to say that if- if this was us trying to take out this tunnel network, could we do it quicker, more efficiently? And candidly, the answer was, maybe we could be a bit faster. But when Hamas is gruesomely holding the hostages, to prevent some of the takeout of the tunnels? This is one of the lessons, this and I think the lesson of drones and in Ukraine, are two of the things in terms of military doctrine I think that we’re gonna have to learn from both of these conflicts.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But- but just to button that up. I mean, when Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, says total victory is “within reach”, weeks away. You are not describing total victory within weeks.
SEN. WARNER: I- I have not–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re saying the impact’s tiny.
SEN. WARNER: Meeting with- meeting with folks in Israel, in the military community, in the intelligence community, the idea that you’re going to eliminate every Hamas fighter, I don’t think is a realistic goal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you agree with that?
SEN. RUBIO: Well, I think that it is possible to achieve a situation in which Hamas does not have the capability to do what they did on October 7. That doesn’t mean Hezbollah doesn’t step in and take over now as a result, that doesn’t mean that a new Hamas offshoot wouldn’t recreate it. This is an ongoing challenge. And at the end, the head of this entire snake is the Iranian regime. They are the ones that provide the weaponry and the funds. There’s no Hamas fighters starving to death. There’s no Hamas leaders starving to death. They’re all fed. They all have medical care. And they all have all the assistance they need to continue to do the things they do. What you don’t want is a Hamas that can continue to launch missiles, particularly against civilian sites inside of Israel, which is the goal here of Iran, and that is to make Israel an unlivable place, so they can drive every Jew out from the river to the sea, and- and- and dominate the region. Do I think it’s- do I think it’s possible to degrade Hamas for some period of time and deny them the capability to- to be able to do that to Israel? Yes. But ongoing, moving forward, there’ll be challenges, because some new group will pop up.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And- and it’s a U.S. national security risk, the longer this goes on, is it not?
Posted originally on the CTH on March 9, 2024 | Sundance
The leftists in Ireland had previously been having a lot of success pushing “progressive” wokeism and curtailing the ability of citizens to criticize cultural marxism.
Whether the issue was forced multiculturalism through immigration or making it unlawful to speak against the globalist agenda, the government of Ireland had been in strong control of the social narratives. However, as the globalists became increasingly confident, the country became increasingly alarmed.
That’s the context for a referendum that would have redefined what it meant in Ireland to be a woman or family. The voters rejected the attempted constitutional change.
Irish Prime Minister Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (pictured left) said it was clear the two referendums were “defeated comprehensively.”
DUBLIN — Ireland’s effort to remove old-fashioned family values from its constitution suffered a double defeat Saturday as voters rejected the amendments on offer as maddeningly vague and threatening to property rights.
The leaders of Ireland’s three-party government conceded defeat as early returns from Friday’s referendums confirmed that an overwhelming majority of voters had said “no” to its proposed replacements for constitutional clauses on marriage and family care.
In final results announced Saturday night, the amendment to change the constitutional definition of family was rejected by 67.7 percent of voters. The proposed changes on family care took an even harsher drubbing, with 73.9 percent against — the greatest defeat of an amendment in Irish constitutional history. (read more)
Posted originally on the CTH on March 9, 2024 | Sundance
The Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mike Turner, may be a Republican – but he is no friend of the American freedom movement who do not like the surveillance state.
Factually, Mike Turner is a part of the deep swamp and has advocated for reforms that make the unconstitutional FISA-702 exploits even worse. As a result, this meeting with the people who control the surveillance mechanism makes sense.
WASHINGTON DC – The House Intelligence Committee is slated to hear from a series of top national security officials for a public hearing Tuesday, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. That list includes:
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines CIA Director Bill Burns FBI Director Chris Wray U.S. Cyber Command Director Gen. Timothy Haugh Defense Intelligence Agency Director Jeffrey Kruse (LINK)
The FISA-702 surveillance authority is scheduled to expire on April 19th, “Patriots Day.”
Everyone agrees the version of the House authorization by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is the worst possible outcome; it expands 702 abuse by expanding the surveillance authority. That reality is factually accurate and correct.
If the 702-reauthorization bill that passed the HPSCI committee vote is as bad asKash Patel and everyone says it is (which it is); and if the bill completely ignores the reforms that were suggested and advocated for by Patel and Nunes (which it does); then how does Kash Patel reconcile his boss Devin Nunes supporting the bill per Mike Turner?
Mike Turner is lying about the support from John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes for the HPSCI FISA-702 reauthorization bill. Ratcliffe and Nunes do not support the Turner construct.
But wait, if that is true (which it is), then why are Ratcliffe, Nunes, and by extension Patel, silent about Turner’s false support claims?
The answer…. Institutional preservation of the HPSCI compartment, and a desire for access therein.
Yes, that is correct. They will rage against the outcome of the institutional endeavor, but only so far as the value of the institution itself must be maintained. Ratcliffe, Nunes and yes, Kash Patel are functionaries of the system. Their sense of identity is dependent on the system.
The CIA director, NSA director, ODNI, FBI Director, etc are not in charge of the compartments they represent. They are simply functionaries -middle men- who operate in the space between where the compass points are directed, where the data originates, and oversight of that data that is ultimately filtered and delivered to the functionaries, who then brief the representatives…. who then create policy… albeit flawed policy…. based on a very specific, controlled, compartmented and skewed information flow. (more)
Posted originally on Mar 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: The rumor going around is that Bill Gates is trying to buy your company for $10 billion. My reply was if so, I doubt Marty would ever sell to him.
Would you care to comment?
Harold
REPLY: The answer is NO. First of all, you cannot spend even one billion, no less ten billion. All $10 billion is good for bribing others to do your will. I would have to give Biden probably $7 billion, so that is certainly an incentive not to sell -LOL. You must create a foundation like Gates, Hillary, and John McCain to hold on to it. I would need someone who shares my goals. This is not about money. I would not move, and I have four cars. If I was married, there would have to be eight. A business partner is the same as a marriage without sex. You have to be on the same page.
My definition of “rich” is having enough money to do what you want when you want. Some think having more money than the other guy makes you more successful or important. I believe it is an accomplishment. We all know Julius Caesar. He is the father of Europe. They still refer to being born by operation as Caesarian birth. I grew up in New Jersey, which in Latin was Nove Caesarea – land of the new Caesar. The month of July is named after him. We remember him for his accomplishments – not that he was vastly rich.
There is no amount of money someone could offer me to make my decision based on material wealth. I am much more interested in helping the world understand the economics at work, and if so, we may reduce the amplitude of wars. If I can leave that behind, I have served my purpose in life.
I will write about the whole AI craze, for there are a lot of charlatans out there calling look-up programs AI that look in a list for the answer – no decision making. I know Gates says it will change everyone’s life in 5 years, and the IMF warns it will wipe out 40% of all jobs. There is far more to REAL AI than all of this speculation by people who are NOT accomplished programmers and do not even understand the basic line of code – IF THEN ELSE.
Someone asked ChatGPT about it vs. Socrates, and here is its response.
(click on the image to view or keep reading for the computer’s response)
How Does ChatGPT Differ From Socrates? A reader asked ChatGPT this exact question, and here is the response:
As an AI language model, I differ from the Socrates Platform in several ways.
Firstly, the Socrates Platform is a web-based platform developed by Martin Armstrong and his team at Armstrong Economics, whereas I am a language model developed by OpenAI. The Socrates Platform is designed to analyze economic and financial data in real-time, predict market trends, and provide actionable insights to investors and traders. In contrast, I am designed to assist with a wide range of tasks, including language translation, question answering, and text generation.
Secondly, the Socrates Platform uses artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing to analyze data, whereas I am primarily focused on natural language processing. The Socrates Platform uses sophisticated algorithms to analyze historical and cultural data to inform its predictions, whereas my responses are based on the input provided to me by the user.
Lastly, the Socrates Platform is primarily designed for financial professionals, investors, and traders, whereas I am designed for a broader range of users, including students, researchers, and general knowledge seekers. While both the Socrates Platform and I use artificial intelligence to analyze data and provide insights, our intended audiences and applications differ significantly.
Yes, the two platforms are completely unrelated aside from being driven by AI. ChatGPT does not have the computing capabilities of Socrates. It does not have the monetary history data, for starters. ChatGPT has no involvement in the financial world and was not designed for financial purposes. It cannot even provide basic market closings as the current model stopped learning in September 2021 and cannot answer any questions after that date. Most importantly, ChatGPT does not have the source code that is the key to Socrates’ successful forecasts.
ChatGPT is a great achievement and a step in the right direction for AI use on a larger scale. However, it is not possible to compete where you do not compare. Socrates is in a league of its own.
Posted originally on the CTH on March 8, 2024 | Sundance
Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor delivers a surprisingly accurate response to the situation created by Joe Biden as espoused in the 2024 State of the Union address. I cannot emphasize the value of these remarks strongly enough, in part because my own independent research – and that of a global team I have been working with- is in direct alignment with this outline.
Two years ago, I accepted the reality that Western sanctions against Russia were profoundly different from all other sanctions and completely ridiculous in the bigger picture of how the global economy operates. A sanction regime is familiar and has been used against Cuba, North Korea, Iran and even Venezuela before. Few were paying attention, but for the first time the U.S sanctions against Russia were not created to target Russia and punish any violator, they were created to remove the tools which would allow violations. The actual dollar as a trade currency was being weaponized.
What followed was not a surprise. Given the nature of the relationships in the geopolitical world, it only took a few months for Russia and their allies to create new tools which would render the Western economic sanctions irrelevant. That’s exactly what happened, and the Russian economy has thrived, while their relationship with two-thirds of the global world has strengthened.
Feeling like the only person who could see through the opaque nature of a narrative that surrounded the Russian sanctions, I quietly set out on a mission to understand what this was all about. None of it made sense. More on that journey will follow. However, what Macgregor is describing is precisely the outcome that was predictable two years ago.
There is an information war against what Macgregor describes in the beginning of these remarks, and people I know personally have become targets as a result. It might surprise many to discover the nature of this information war does not originate with government or politicians. Our focus has been misplaced and our emphasis has been on the wrong syllable. WATCH:
.
The targets within this information war are not people who are criticizing politicians. The core targets within this information war are those who are talking about the entities who are controlling and directing the politicians and government. The voices who are considered a threat are not, repeat NOT, voices who are critical of government. The voices who are considered a threat are those who understand the government actors are controlled and intentionally presented as the false source of the problem.
Just as Jack Smith is not the controlling entity organizing the targeting of Donald Trump, so too is Joe Biden (and the administration) not the originating entity who organized the Western sanction regime against Russia. Jack Smith and Joe Biden are essentially actors, vessels following a design that has been created by outside government entities for the purpose of targeting Donald Trump and/or Russia respectively. The bigger motives and intents of targeting both are essentially the same. There are trillions at stake.
Outside government actors like Mary McCord, Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann and crew are the organizers behind Jack Smith’s effort. They are the characters who coordinate with Fani Willis (GA) and Letishia James (NY). Those individuals are funded by outside government institutions. Ultimately, Jack Smith is the vessel.
Within the Western finance system, Blackrock, Vanguard, the WEF and a host of similarly aligned massive financial interests are the organizers behind the Russian sanction regime. The USA government is the vessel.
FOLLOW THE MONEY…. This is one of the reasons why the entire political establishment is behind support for Ukraine. Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street and a host of massive financial interests are the funding mechanism for U.S. politicians.
The various Western governments and politicians are the vessels, not the originating sources of these policies.
Macgregor doesn’t go deep in the weeds on this, but what he describes as the economic and financial outcome is entirely accurate.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 