Posted originally on Jun 6, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Joe Biden’s former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre spent nearly three years demanding that the American people turn a blind eye to the ongoing failures of Biden’s health and policies. Jean-Pierre is now seeking personal fame in her forthcoming book, “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.” As a publicity stunt, Jean-Pierre announced that she had left the Democratic Party to become an independent.
“Until January 20, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the President of the United States,” she said in a statement, according to The Associated Press. “At noon on that day, I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes. We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically.”
Her role and only responsibility was to deliberately mislead the American public and spew out propaganda to dissuade the pubic from knowing the truth. Her “determination of the danger we face” is meaningless and beyond hypocritical. Perhaps she realizes that no one will now hire her. Biden himself noted that she was granted the position because he wanted to appoint a gay woman of color. She deserves to be subpoenaed to appear before a Congressional committee investigating one of the most extensive cover-up scandals in recent history.
“She made a joke about being an independent last year and now it’s a book. All ideas are monetary — even the dumb ones,” said one of the former staffers, as reported by Politico. Biden introduced her to the public as a DEI hire. Jean-Pierre was the LEAST transparent press secretary in the history of the United States. The few questions she did acknowledge were answered with blatant lies.
“The President has delivered historic economic growth, created millions of jobs, and made investments in infrastructure that are benefiting Americans in every state,” she touted. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics altered its data after Biden left office and admitted that the economy contracted. He sent jobs offshore. He passed the largest spending bill in American history under the premise of reducing inflation, which completely exacerbated the problem. “This administration is focused on lowering costs for families, strengthening our supply chains, and making sure America leads in the industries of the future,” she insisted. Biden later admitted the Inflation Reduction Act was a ruse to promote the climate change agenda.
She repeatedly mocked reporters for questioning Biden’s mental health, insisting he was “as sharp as ever.” “The reality is, that report, that part of the report does not live in reality. It just doesn’t. It is gratuitous. It is unacceptable, and it does not live in reality,” she commented after Robert Hur determined Biden was a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” who was unfit to stand trial. “We have released thorough reports from his medical team every year since he’s been in office. … As it relates to, you know, something like a cognitive test … the medical team said it is not warranted in this case. … We have put forward a thorough, transparent annual report on his health. So they have said that is not warranted. It is not necessary,” she insisted. When Trump demolished Biden during the debate that led to Kamala’s rise, Jean-Pierre insisted Biden merely had “a cold and a bad night.”
Independents frequently agree with policies from the GOP. That is not the stance of Jean-Pierre, who is merely switching her party affiliation to deter the ongoing backlash against the Biden Administration as new whistleblowers come forward every week. She identifies as an Independent, but she is from the same party that would permit someone to identify as a dog or a fish. This woman never belonged in politics and is a prime example of why DEI hires are never based on skill. Her departure is a reminder that no one wants to be affiliated with the deceased Democratic Party.
Posted originally on Jun 4, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Holding a 400 oz Gold Bar – Central Bank Standard
QUESTION: Hello Martin – Here in Canada, we have a vexing question – why no Gold Reserves at BofC? USA has a date with destiny aka Ft Knox Audit that Trump and Bessent seemed engaged on this file but are preoccupied lately with a litany of distractions, I’m 74 with health issues surfacing, which rearrange one’s priorities – many millions of Boomers in same boat – but that’s the price you knew was coming
jw
ANSWER: Canada’s lack of significant gold reserves is the result of a deliberate policy decision spanning several decades, primarily driven by the following reasons:
Opportunity Cost: Gold pays no interest or dividends. The Bank of Canada (BoC) decided it could achieve better returns by holding interest-bearing assets like foreign government bonds (US Treasuries, German Bunds, etc.) and deposits.
The Shift to More Liquid Assets: The BoC prioritized holding foreign exchange reserves (primarily US dollars, euros, yen, etc.), which are highly liquid and easily used for direct intervention in currency markets to stabilize the Canadian dollar (CAD).
Canada began the process of gradually selling off its gold in the 1980s, when gold rallied to $875 on January 21, 1980, and then began a 19-year decline to $250. Canada significantly accelerated its gold sales during the 1990s and early 2000s under the leadership of Finance Minister Paul Martin and Governor Gordon Thiessen, aiming to optimize reserve asset management. By 2016, Canada sold its last significant holdings. As of today, Canada’s official gold reserves are reported as zero tonnes (or negligible amounts – e.g., 77 ounces reported in 2022, worth a trivial sum relative to total reserves). In essence, Canada decided that the costs and lack of yield associated with holding large gold reserves outweighed the traditional benefits. They opted instead to hold foreign currencies and bonds that are easier to use for market intervention and generate income, relying on the strength of the Canadian economy itself to support the value of its currency.
Gordon Brown, as Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer (1997-2007), authorized the sale of a very significant portion (roughly half) of the UK’s gold reserves. He was a member of the Labour Party, which viewed gold as a rich man’s toy. He sold approximately 395 tonnes of gold. The sales took place between July 1999 and March 2002. This represented about 58% of the UK’s total gold reserves at the time (which were around 715 tonnes before the sales). After the sales, the UK’s reserves stood at about 310 tonnes, where they remain today. The sales occurred during a period when the gold price was near a 20-year low, averaging around $275 per ounce. Shortly after the sales concluded, the gold price began a historic bull run, rising dramatically over the next decade to peak over $1,900 per ounce in 2011. This timing led to massive criticism that the UK sold at the absolute bottom of the market, potentially losing billions of pounds in potential value. The period is often referred to as the “Brown Bottom” in financial circles. Brown was ignorant of how markets function. He announced in advance the strategy to sell its gold reserves, so the market held back, anticipating a greater supply. The proceeds were invested in foreign currency and government bonds. While these assets generated interest income, the capital appreciation of gold vastly outstripped the returns on those bonds over the following years.
The head of the Bank of Canada during the main phase of Canada’s gold reserve sell-off (mid-to-late 1990s) was Gordon Thiessen (born 1938). He served as Governor from February 1, 1994, to January 31, 2001. Thiessen spent his entire career within the Bank of Canada, joining in 1963. However, it was his predecessor, John Crow (1987-1994), who began reducing its gold reserves significantly in the 1980s. While the Bank of Canada managed the sales operationally, the ultimate decision to sell the gold rested with the Government of Canada (specifically, the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance). The Bank acted as the government’s agent in this matter.
Postedoriginally on Jun 3, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION:
Mr. Armstrong,
No honest person, whether American or Palestinian believes terrorists should push the US government and its people around. But then why are you so disinterested that Israel and the US created Hamas expressly for the public to witness a TV drama via the fake news of US and Israel’s fake victimization? Trump and Harris are not about peace in the middle east, and Trump while safer for Americans is knowingly instituting the open air concentration camp to annihilate the original native people of that land who were dumped these foreign Israeli aliens in 1948.
The situation is not improved under Trump, and while I have deep respect for your work, you cannot be so heartless as to believe this people should be annihilated like rats all for a terrorist faction that arose when the alien people after 1948 acquired US missiles and began starvation campaigns and massacres of their people. Would it be fine if Americans were put in camps, rounded up into high rise buildings, and then had the buildings demolished with them inside because “a domestic terrorist was on the third floor”?
Palestinians today are living the 2025 Holodomor no different than the Ukrainians did. If you agree (or disagree) you will write a piece on this, because I know that sound-minded people around the world are of the same view on this issue. Shem Tov is a dual citizen by the way. Israeli dual citizens are not loyal to the US, I’m sorry to say, and his story and Trump’s is not a patriotic one.
Best regards
L
ANSWER: I’ve discussed the ongoing tragedies in Gaza at length in other blog posts. My only firm stance–I am against governments that force war and destruction upon their people. I receive backlash from those who are pro-Israel and pro-Palestine for explaining the geopolitical nature of what is occurring in that region. The Hamas terrorists feared a Trump victory, as I noted in the article you are questioning, which equates to increased protection for the United States. Few speak on how the US government uses regime change to maintain dominance throughout the world.
USAID had a budget that surpassed the budgets of the CIA and the State Department. America was directly funding its enemies because intelligence agencies and unelected bureaucrats manipulate global events for geopolitical purposes. USAID is often used as a front for CIA operations, particularly in regions where the US wants to destabilize governments that don’t align with Western interests. Funding is allegedly channeled through NGOs and civil society groups that support uprisings or color revolutions (e.g., Ukraine in 2014, the Arab Spring).
The regime change tactic is not limited to the Middle East. I penned a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi in February 2025, explaining U.S. efforts to fund opposition movements in Russia dating back to 2000. “The Plot to Seize Russia” details the lengths that the neocons have gone through for decades on their quest to conquer Russia, which partially began by a regime change in Ukraine that permitted a comedian to rule over the nation.
Current Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was installed by the CIA. I explain in the linked article that Syria’s abundance of oil reserves and geographic location make it prime real estate for Western influence. America captured Ahmed al-Sharaa while he was fighting for Al Qaeda in Iraq, and then simply released him, or so we are told. The truth of the matter is that he was almost certainly compromised and turned into a CIA asset during this time period. Equally as important, the US has a new battleground for its proxy war against Russia. Trump signed numerous trade deals in the Middle East with partners who are eager to rebuild Syria and usurp its currently non-existent infrastructure. Again, I explained at length the devastation that the Syrian people experienced after 14 years of war.
Israel is a vassal state. “If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one,” Joe Biden admitted back in 1986 when he was a Senator. Israel is a strategic military base for the West. It permitted America to keep an eye on not just oil but opium as well. America did not need to “create” an Israel since Britain basically did back in 1948. Israel is not a charity and the West does not fund it because of religion. Yes, Israel was zoned for those of Jewish faith after World War II, but the true reason it was created was to provide the Allies with power in the Middle East.
America alone, prior to the Hamas attack, provided Israel with $158 billion since 1948. This money was not a loan but rather an investment. Without Israel, Western forces would have no reason to patrol the seas or surround the region. Power and money are the only aspects that motivate governments. No one is funding this war out of concern for the people.
This is why the West immediately began building up Israel’s military. France provided Israel with the ability to build nuclear weapons near Dimona in the Negev Desert. When this became public knowledge in 1960, Eisenhower feigned shock, and the media began reporting that the factory was being used to create textiles rather than nuclear weapons.
Former French Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville admitted in December 1960 that France assisted Israel in creating a “replica of [the] Marcoule plant.” France needed to protect its colonies in North Africa at the time and relied on Israeli intelligence. France provided the raw materials and arms, while the US aided with financing through tax-deductible charities. Egypt had nationalized the Suez Canal, and France and Britain considered invading to seize the area. Then the former Soviet Union threatened to intervene and the world was ready to use the Middle East as their battleground. Russia is funding a nuclear plant near that area on behalf of Egypt. And yet, Israel’s current policy is to neither confirm nor deny if they have a nuclear program. Look at history and you will see how everything has been unfolding in accordance with the war cycle.
I was criticized for questioning whether America should continue funding Israel. It is no secret that American politicians are beholden to AIPAC lobbyists who have found their way into every niche of the American government. After Hurricane Harvey devastated Texas, one town refused to provide US government aid to residents until they signed a “Verification not to Boycott Israel”clause. Donald Trump has approved of over $12 billion in aid to Israel since he took office. Two wings on the same bird—both sides would be obliged to continue funding and supporting Israel because America does not want to lose its stronghold in the Middle East.
When I visited Mar-a-Lago in March 2020, I admittedly was impressed by Donald Trump’s candor. He explained that he could no longer call mothers and tell them their sons have died fighting a war for the United States. This is why American troops are not yet in Russia. Trump does not support endless wars.
Trump, however, supports America-first policies and does not wish to act as the world’s police. The United States would have supported Israel regardless of who was at the helm because that aligns with US interests. Politics is not pretty. World peace is not attainable because the desires of man never change. Tragedy and destruction are inevitable. Regime change tactics are not limited to the United States, for that matter, as nations have employed this strategy throughout history.
I do not condone war. The computer model indicates that the War Cycle, in general, is expected to gain momentum and peak by 2032. Socrates shows rising risk of regional war involving Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, and potentially Turkey. There is a key turning point on the horizon for 2026. The new geopolitical world order is unraveling, and again, there will be no incentive for peace until 2032.
Posted originally on Jun 3, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
A doctor could not properly make a decision for his or her patient without undergoing medical training. A lawyer could not represent a client without studying the law. A priest could not lead in worship without a deep understanding of the Bible. Yet, we permit top government officials to make decisions without a thorough understanding of the Constitution.
Those who wish to join the ranks of the “deep state” must now undergo an 80-hour training session to ensure that they understand the basis of America’s foundation. The training will be composed of video sessions and two days of in-person training for the Senior Executive Service (SES). The goal: “Ensure that SES officials uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and effectively serve the American people.”
The SES was created under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and implemented in 1979. President Jimmy Carter believed these bureaucrats could restore public trust in government after the Watergate scandal. The stated purpose was to “ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” Thereby, one personnel system managed the federal government.
These people are NOT elected. They are installed by the government to monitor the government. Top US bureaucrats under the Senior Executive Service (SES) grew to 8,000 under the Biden Administration. These men and women hold key leadership roles beneath the top presidential appointees and act as the middleman between those appointees and the federal workforce.
The Office of Personnel and Management, first obtained by RealClearPolitics, loosely outlines “new Executive Core Qualifications.” The new appointees will not be hired under the premise of DEI. Rather, they must show a commitment to “upholding the principles of the American Founding, including equality under the law and democratic self-government.” Every agency will be required to hire a majority of non-career politicians to their Executive Review Boards. “These requirements ensure that effective implementation of the President’s policies is at the forefront of agency executive management decisions,” the memo says.
Congress enacted a 120-day moratorium period on involuntary reassignments when a new president comes to power. The fact of the matter is that these positions are likely to be granted to a new group that supports whoever is in power. The Department of Justice Inspector General conducted a report in 2000 that found panels of peers judged SES employees of the FBI were less likely to face disciplinary action, serving as an example of how bureaucrats protect their own and have a different tier of justice.
Trump signed the “Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives” executive order back in January to increase accountability to SES staff. It is astonishing that these elite bureaucrats who wield tremendous power were not required to study the Constitution. There is no need for unelected bureaucrats in a democracy. Drain the swamp and leave it empty.
Posted originally on Jun 3, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The United Kingdom admitted it “lost control” over its own national security and permitted the invasion of thousands of illegal migrants. Once the naval powerhouse of the world, the former British Empire has “lost” the ability to protect its own shores from the onslaught of migrants that have been pouring in since its leaders adopted open border policies. Men with little to no resources in canoes are suddenly overpowering the long-admired British fleet. In truth, the government has not “lost control,” as this is a calculated effort to reshape the UK.
Others are blaming France for not preventing migrants from launching from their shores. French police stopped 38% of migrants (8,347 people) attempting to reach the UK by boat this year. French authorities prevented 45% of new arrivals in 2024, and 47% in 2023. France is receiving €541 million over a three-year period from the UK government to prevent illegal crossings in the English Channel. France has hired hundreds of new law enforcement officers to patrol the waters, but the number of asylum seekers continues to rise.
Upon taking office, Sir Keir Starmer announced that the Rwanda plan was “dead” as he would not deport migrants to third nations. Labour has stated they are seeking a “calm and patient rebuilding” of migration policies and refuse to accept any large-scale deportation efforts. If you can make it to shore, you can likely stay. Starmer has said the UK is becoming an “island of strangers” but refuses to adopt any policies to curb the inflow.
The United Kingdom is experiencing a mass repopulation event. The former population is being replaced with both legal and illegal immigrants. Birth rates are plummeting, public debt is rising, and the government is openly permitting migrants to enter to maintain its public welfare state. Rather than fixing the issues that are causing the population to contract, the government is importing a new population. The British political elite, both Tory and Labour, have failed to grasp the historical implications of these shifts. It is not racist or xenophobic to observe patterns and hard truths. The core identity of the UK and other Build Back Better nations has been abandoned and replaced. They are not bringing in migrants for humanitarian purposes, and it would be a lie to think that the UK was completely unable to secure its border. If they can’t prevent a few thousand men on cheap boats from entering, how could they protect themselves in time of war? The government is allowing this to happen because it needs new taxpayers to replace the workers it failed to produce.
This is why conservative leaders are attempting to rebuild domestic manufacturing and providing incentives for women to have children. The global mainstream media is controlled by the left, and therefore, these nationalist values are painted as a form of hatred or superiority. Quite the contrary, as conservative leaders are attempting to save their nation’s culture and traditions by encouraging the success of their own population.
Globalism is directly tied to repopulation theory. “In the future, countries with aging populations may need migration to sustain their economies,” Bill Gates said, as he strongly believes that the world is overcrowded. “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Repopulation theory is more of a tactic than a theory. Hence, leaders like Starmer are ignoring warnings and standing idle as a demographic shift permanently alters their nation. As it stands, first-generation migrants will compose 25% of the UK’s population by 2035, according to the Centre for Migration Control, and the UK’s overall population will surge to 73 million. It may seem far off, but that is only a decade from now. All Build Back Better nations will be utterly unrecognizable thanks to repopulation tactics.
Posted originally on CTH on May 29, 2025 | Sundance
The current Canadian Prime Minister is genuinely a walking meme of a Canadian Prime Minister parody.
During his remarks to parliament today, Prime Minister Carney waxed gleefully about the U.S. federal trade court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, just moments before the federal appeals court stayed the opinion of the lower court. It’s a little funny.
PM Carney doesn’t seem to recognize the reality of the economic landscape before him. He complains about blocked access to the U.S. consumer base with a level of entitlement that’s genuinely humorous. Meanwhile, the Canadian economy around him is collapsing. WATCH:
♦ BACKGROUND – Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist. In essence, in addition to the NATO defense shortfall, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.
To wit, President Trump then said, if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses and meeting their NATO obligations, then Canada should become the 51st U.S state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process. However, in the emotional reaction to Trump’s statements, no-one looked at the core issues outlined by Trudeau that framed President Trump’s opinion.
Representing Canada, Justin Trudeau was not expressing an unwillingness to comply with fairness and reciprocity in trade with the USA, what Trudeau was expressing was an inability to comply.
Quite simply, after decades of shifting priorities, Canada no longer has the internal economic capability to comply with a fair-trade agreement (FTA). Trudeau was not lying, and President Trump understood the argument; hence his 51st state remarks.
This is where it becomes important to understand the core reason why Trump, Ross and Lighthizer (2017) did not structurally want to replace the NAFTA agreement with another trilateral trade deal. Mexico and Canada are completely different as it pertains to trade with the USA. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada.
♦ Firstly, Canada is a NATO partner, Mexico is not. As President Trump affirmed to Justin Trudeau during the meeting, it would be unfair of President Trump to discuss NATO funding with the European Union, while Canada is one of the worst offenders. Trump is leveraging favorable trade terms and tariff relief with the EU member states, as a carrot to get them into compliance with the 2.0 to 2.5% spending requirement for their military.
If the NATO member states contribute more to their own defense, the U.S. can pull back spending and save Americans money. However, Canada is currently 26th in NATO funding, spending only 1.37% of their GDP on defense (link).
Canada would have to spend at least another $15 billion/yr on their defense programs in order to reach 2.0%. Justin Trudeau told President Trump that was an impossible goal given the nature of the Canadian political system, and the current size of their economy ($2.25 trillion).
♦ Secondly, over the last 40 years Canada has deindustrialized their economy, Mexico has not. As the progressive political ideology of their politicians took control of Canada policy, the ‘climate change’ agenda and ‘green’ economy became their focus. The dirty industrialized systems were not compliant with the goals of the Canadian policy makers.
The dirty mining sector (coal, coking coal, ore) no longer exists at scale to support self-sufficient manufacturing. The dirty oil refineries do not exist to refine the crude oil they extract. Large industrial heavy industry no longer exists at a scale needed to be self-sufficient. Instead, Canada purchases forged and rolled steel component parts from overseas (mostly China). Making the issue more challenging, Canada doesn’t even have enough people skilled to do the dirty jobs within the heavy manufacturing; they would need a national apprenticeship program. Again, all points raised by Trudeau to explain why bilateral trade compliance was impossible.
♦ Thirdly, the trade between Canada/U. S and Mexico/U. S is entirely different. The main imports from Canada are energy, lumber and raw materials. The main imports from Mexico are agriculture, cars and finished industrial goods. Mexico refines its own oil; Canada ships their oil to the USA for refining. There are obviously some similar products from Mexico and Canada, but for the most part there is a big difference.
♦ Forth, USA banks are allowed to operate in Mexico, but USA banks are not allowed to operate in Canada. USA media organizations are allowed to broadcast in Mexico, but USA media organizations are regulated and not permitted to broadcast in Canada. The Canadian government has strong regulations and restrictions on information and Intellectual Property.
All of these points of difference highlight why a trilateral trade agreement like NAFTA and the USMCA just don’t work out for the USA.
Additionally, if President Trump levies a tariff on Chinese imports, it hits Canada much harder than Mexico because Canada has deindustrialized and now imports from China to assemble into finished goods destined to the USA. In a very direct way Canada is a passthrough for Chinese products. Canada is now more of an assembly economy, not a dirty job manufacturing economy.
When Trudeau outlines the inability of Canada to agree to trade terms, simply because his country no longer has the capability of adhering to those trade terms, a frustrated President Trump says, “then become a state.”
There is no option to remain taking advantage of the USA on this level, and things are only getting worse. Thus, the point of irreconcilable conflict is identified.
Because the Canadian government became so dependent on their role as an assembly economy, they enmeshed with China in a way that made them dependent. The political issues of Chinese influence within Canada are a direct result of this dynamic. In fact, China was the big winner from the outcome of the recent election because all of their investments into Canada are grounded on retaining Liberal government dependency.
If Trump targets China with punitive tariffs, the Canadian economy will be collaterally damaged. Canada will end up paying a tariff rate because they use cheap Chinese component parts in their finished goods. Canada has structurally designed their economy to do this over multiple years.
Understanding the unique nature of the Canadian economic conundrum, the only way to address the issue is to break out the USMCA into two separate bilateral trade agreements. One set of trade terms for Mexico that leverages border security, and one set of trade terms for Canada that leverages NATO security and border security. The only substantive similarity between them will be in the auto and agriculture sector.
If you think the multinational corporations, political leftists and UniParty Republicans in the USA are strongly opposing Trump now, just wait until later this year when the Trump administration proposes the elimination of the trilateral North American trade agreement, USMCA.
According to the World Bank, the USA economy is $27.3 trillion. Canada is $2.1 trillion.
Do the math!
[…] The expectation, according to two people close to the White House, is that negotiations to permanently remove the threat of painful 25 percent tariffs on Canada — which Trump mostly rolled back earlier this month — and other sector-specific tariffs are likely to be folded into the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That review is due in 2026, but the Trump administration wants to accelerate to this calendar year.
“It makes sense to separate out Canada and Mexico from the rest because they are going to want to redo the USMCA,” said one of the people close to the White House, who were granted anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “They’re going to have separate tariffs that focus specifically on Mexico and Canada, and they’re going to take some actions to squeeze them a little bit.” [LINK]
Posted originally on May 29, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Mark Carney’s call for aligning with the EU in a war against Russia reveals more about his ideological alignment than any strategic necessity. As a former central banker turned World Economic Forum alumnus, Carney has long abandoned the notion of free markets in favor of globalist control. He is keen to support the EU’s Marxist-style top-down approach, which has economically gutted Europe and driven capital flight, and is extremely eager to distance Canada from the United States in every possible way.
“Seventy-five cents of every dollar of capital spending for defence goes to the United States. That’s not smart,” Carney stated about his nation’s former top ally. He does not want the United States to remain the world’s superpower, per WEF protocol, as this sentiment was felt long before Trump. Carney would like to spend at least $1.25 trillion on defense over the next five years. “We’re making great progress on that, and by Canada Day, we’d like to see something concrete there,” Carney said, noting that Canada will be penning a deal with the European Union in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, US President Trump has offered Canada protection under his proposed “golden dome.” As he continues to pressure Canada to become a state, Canada runs further into the arms of the EU. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is also keen to find a way to support his plans for war without the support of the United States. Rutte is expected to ask the 32-member alliance to up current spending to around 3.5% of GDP.
Canada currently spends 1.37% of its GDP on defense, below the current 2% NATO target. Carney believes Canada can meet NATO standards by 2030, but NATO is increasingly requesting more. “We are going to have to spend more, sooner,” the prime minister said. “That’s one of the reasons why we will have a fall budget, not a budget tomorrow, because we’re part of deeper discussions on the defence side.”
Canada has already stationed troops in the Arctic on a near-permanent basis. Operation Nanook in the Far North has expanded as Canada attempts to secure its place in the Arctic region. Canada and Greenland are both in strong opposition of the current US administration as Trump continues to pressure both to abandon sovereignty. But the true nature of Arctic operations is to intimidate Russia.
“We want to be in the Arctic on a near permanent basis,” Lt.-Gen. Steve Boivin stated. “The current approach to Operation Nanook puts us in the Arctic for five to six months a year. We’re looking at being there 10 plus months per year.” The federal government has already spent an additional C$420 million on the operation.
In a way, Trump is receiving everything he once requester,d from increased NATO spending to forcing nations to defend their own lands without the support of the US. On the other hand, nations are now eager to begin offloading their increased defense budgets outside the US. The capital expended on war would funnel back into the US. NATO was not entirely a charity case for the US as it did receive those funds recycled back into the US economy.
It is clear that Carney is eager to join the alliance of nations taking their arms up against Russia. Russia poses no threat to Canada. Carney’s eagerness to join EU efforts has nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with consolidating power by forcing the West into a global war.
Posted originally on May 27, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
We know we are approaching a major high in Bitcoin when Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), a publicly traded media company controlled by the U.S. president’s family, announced a plan to purchase $2.5 billion worth of Bitcoin on Tuesday. This is a warning that we are in the throes of a typical bubble that will not end nicely.
As a trader, you come to understand that every market, no matter what, acts the same because it is NOT the instrument, be it tulips, stocks, commodities, or bonds – it is human nature and the madness of crowds. A crash becomes inevitable when 97% of the people are all long and they run out of fresh buyers. Like the Russian collapse, because all the bankers were long and the hedge funds, then they tried to sell and discovered that they were the market. When they try to sell, the broker says there is NO BID! Bitcoin is a trading vehicle like everything else. It is no exception to the rules of markets. It is just the next Tulip or Dot.COM or AI craze.
I would NOT invest in Trump Media and Technology Group. It appears to be a brief rally, but this decision is misguided and emotional. They are risking the company on a speculation and are all caught up in the typical bubble, assuming the majority is correct. Why not convert your cash to yuan or euros when your expenses and revenue are in dollars? I can’t even recall the number of companies that came crawling to me for help after making the same risky FX trades.
The problem remains, the majority is ALWAYS wrong, and that is why no market is ever exempt from the inevitable boom and bust cycle. This is also when it only takes a minority to bring down a government or a market.
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 