Posted originally on Jul 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The globalists refuse to declare the migrant crisis an “invasion,” but we have history’s guidance to show us what happens when an unsustainable number of people enter a nation. The Goths, a non-military group considered migrants, are a perfect example. These men, women, and children sought refuge within the Roman Empire. This was not an invading army but rather a fleeing population seeking safety from the Huns. The Goths, long-time foes of the Romans, appealed to be admitted to Roman territory due to the threat they faced and needed to seek asylum. This event led to significant consequences and marked a turning point in the history of the Roman Empire.
The great Gothic migration involved hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. While, to some degree, the growing unrest in the East pushed them southward, there is also little doubt that the border defenses of the Roman Empire had also been seriously weakened by the political instability and economic pressures that were building within Rome itself. Of course, the rumor of great plunder and riches available in Roman territory acted like a magnet much in the same way as the rumors of streets paved in gold in America prompted great European migrations during the 19th and early 20th centuries or the outdated stereotype of the American Dream.
By 238 AD, the Gothic position was so threatening to the Roman Empire that Emperor Maximinus was forced to pay them vast amounts of tribute, similar to how countries currently pay all expenses for migrants. While his aim may have been to buy time, this demonstrated weakness on the part of the Romans, who were still in the middle of internal political struggles for power. Internal imperial rivalries ultimately defeated Maximinis. Within less than four years thereafter, the Goths began a series of raids along the Danube.
A decade later and Philip I attempted to quell the influx of migrants, but died while battling his successor, Trajan Decius. Rome was simply decaying gradually from internal struggles, which weakened the economy and constantly pitted one legion against another in a struggle for power. We see internal struggles today throughout the West as politics continue to divide the people. The Romans did not consider the Goths to be a force that would threaten the entire Empire, but rather more as a barbarian force looking for plunder rather than power.
Trajanus Decius declared the Goths an enemy and attempted to force them out of the empire, only for the masses to return a year later. The Goths were prepared this time and formed several strategic alliances with enemies, such as the Dacian Carpi. This led to a full-scale invasion, and the Roman Empire suddenly found itself besieged as war raged on in Moesia, Dacia, and even in Thrace, while the main body of the Gothic invasion was preparing a descent into the region of the Black Sea.
After many battles, the Goths emerged as the new masters of the entire Danube territory, all the way to the Black Sea. Trebonianus Gallus emerged as the new Emperor who could do nothing to reverse the Empire’s humiliating defeat. The Goths now turned to Illyricum and Thrace, burning and plundering their way across the region. By 253 AD, the Goths set sail along the Black Sea, headed straight for Asia Minor, which was wide open and waiting to be plundered.
The Roman Empire was declining until Emperor Aurelian came to power and began restorative efforts, including anti-immigration policies. He not merely launched defensive measures, he moved on the offensive against the Goths and demolished them through a series of battles. The Goths were driven out of the Balkans and into Dacia. Aurelian also greatly restored the Black Sea defenses, which helped those regions rebuild their economies as well. However, Aurelian failed to pursue the barbarians into the Roman province of Dacia, pulling back and establishing the new border once again along the natural border as originally defined by Augustus – the Danube.
Aurelian’s decision to redraw the borders left Dacia in the hands of the Carpi and the Goths. Once the Goths were contained, they began to divide into two distinct groups – Ostrogothic and Visigothic kingdoms. These groups would evolve into powerful states that would ultimately bring down the Roman Empire in the West.
Those in favor of the Gothic migration stated that the newcomers would increase tax revenue and benefit the Roman economy. It was a humanitarian crisis and Rome’s responsibility to solve. Instead, the unsustainable influx of Gothic refugees contributed to the eventual fall of the Western Roman Empire. The event marked a turning point in Roman history and was part of a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of invasion, civil war, plague, and economic depression. History always repeats.
Posted originally on Jul 5, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: You said that the German Nazi Party was raising money selling bonds in the United States before they invaded Poland in 1939. When I asked AI, if the Nazis sold bonds in the US it said “No, the Nazi regime did not sell sovereign bonds in the United States after coming to power in 1933 and before the outbreak of WWII in 1939.” So, who is correct? You or AI?
ANSWER: From what I am being told, a problem is surfacing with ChatGPT-generated content, which often contains factual inaccuracies. The development of language models to engage in AI is presenting a problem. They are learning from the WEB, correct. However, they are not necessarily capable of verifying what is true or false. Here is a Conversion Office for German Foreign Debts $100 Bond (Nazi Government sold in the United States) into the New York 1936. I have the physical evidence that suggests that the answer you received was incorrect.
British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET) recently explained that “no research has yet examined how epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy affect students’ actual use of ChatGPT-generated content, which often contains factual inaccuracies. ” For those unfamiliar with this arcane term of philosophy, linguistics, and rhetoric, epistemic, it traces back to the knowledge of the Greeks. That Greek word is from the verb epistanai, meaning “to know or understand.”
I try to be accurate, and if I state something as fact, I have generally verified it versus making a statement of just an “opinion,” perhaps derived from a belief. Nobody is perfect – not even ChatGPT.
Posted originally on Jul 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
They say it takes a generation to reshape the way a nation views its military allegiance. Germany dwindled its military capacity significantly after its defeat in the last world war, wearing their loss as a badge of shame. Neither the people nor the government wanted to reinvigorate Germany’s military power after the destructive nation building and expansion under the Third Reich. The times have changed, as they always do, and Germany is now on the defensive. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz envisions forming the largest armyin Europe.
“Building up our military is our top priority,” said Merz. “From now on, the federal government will provide the military with as much money as it needs to ensure it becomes Europe’s strongest armed force. We are Europe’s most populous country and Europe’s biggest economy, and nothing less should be expected from us. Our partners not only expect this — they demand it.”
Merz stated that Germany will spend 3.5% of its GDP on military defense over the next decade, placing spending as a percentage on par with the United States. Germany already found a loophole to spend on defense indefinitely after declaring an emergency and deciding to ignore prior military spending limits. The Germany government now plans to spend $400 billion on defense alone through 2029. Simultaneously, the nation will not cut social programs or readjust its overall budget as a constitutional amendment now permits lawmakers to bypass the debt brake and borrow in perpetuity without calculating that spending in the federal budget.
Germany believes it is on the right side of history due to its backing of Ukraine, the world’s favorite underdog. A refugee favorite, the nation has allowed 1.2 million Ukrainians into its borders since the war began. The nation hit a record-high for population growth in 2022 due to the number of migrants it has accepted.
Now, Germany provides more funding to Ukraine than any other European nation, and is third globally behind the US and UK. Merz has been an outspoken critic of the United States under Donald Trump due to his reluctance to support Ukraine, and he believes he build an iron-clad military so powerful that the entirety of Europe will no longer need to depend on America for defense.
The Bundeswehr, Germany’s military, currently has around 262,000 troops, but it would like to boldly increase its size with 200,000 additional troops and will spend €100 billion in a special fund to modernize its military. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said in May 2024 that he was “convinced” that Germany “needs a form of military conscription.”While there is no conscription, Germans are required to register for a potential draft before they turn 18. By June of 2024, I was informed by multiple personal sources that this registration had been extended to include women. One reliable source informed me that her female family friend was sent a notice to register at 59 years old.
Germany is the core foundation of the entire European economy. As they used to say about America, if it catches a cold, the rest of the world suffers pneumonia. Germany’s trajectory toward war is not driven by a public desire for conflict, but by economic, political, and geopolitical pressures—and especially by its entanglement with the European Union, its energy crisis and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Europe. Net Zero initiatives and cutting off cheap Russian gas drastically hurt the German economy by raising energy costs and stifling its auto market. The entire European Union is collapsing, with Germany at the center as the bloc’s primary financier. The EU needs war to maintain the illusion of control, and Germany must be at the frontlines as the bloc’s richest nation.
Posted originally on CTH on June 29, 2025 | Sundance
“Elbows up” and knees bent. As expected given the nature of their dependency, the Canadian government has rescinded the digital services tax against U.S. tech companies.
The June 30th collection is halted and the Canadian government led by Mark Carney will be bringing legislation to rescind the tax entirely.
CANADA – […] Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States. Consistent with this action, Prime Minister Carney and President Trump have agreed that parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025.
The DST was announced in 2020 to address the fact that many large technology companies operating in Canada may not otherwise pay tax on revenues generated from Canadians. Canada’s preference has always been a multilateral agreement related to digital services taxation. While Canada was working with international partners, including the United States, on a multilateral agreement that would replace national digital services taxes, the DST was enacted to address the aforementioned taxation gap.
The June 30, 2025 collection will be halted, and Minister Champagne will soon bring forward legislation to rescind the Digital Services Tax Act. (LINK)
In the bigger picture Canada has a serious problem.
Canada is entirely dependent on the USA; there is no part of the Canadian economic system that can survive without total dependence on the USA. The Canadian economy is currently stagnant and their leftist government is desperate to find a way to collect revenue somehow, any way possible. Additionally, President Trump is going to end the USMCA trade agreement and shut down a majority of the benefits Canada has been extracting.
The most remarkable aspect to this reality is the denial within Canada. There are maybe a handful of honest Canadian economists, financial types and/or pundits who understand economic matters that are willing to outline and explain the details of Canada’s vulnerability…..
…. The rest are in denial, shouting ‘elbows up’ as if that is going to change the inevitable. The pretending is strong amid the snow Mexicans. Their denial is a mass formation psychosis. Stunningly so.
Posted originally on Jun 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty,
After reading AJP Taylor’s History of WW1 (an esteemed English historian), I realized that your statement about the Lusitania bringing the USA into WW1 is rather inaccurate: the Lusitania was sunk in May 1915; USA entered WW1 in April 1917, essentially two years later.
The real impetus was the unrestricted submarine warfare declared by Germany, which targeted US corporate profits that impelled the US to declare war on Germany, as Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917. Initially, this was a great success for Germany, but through the introduction of convoys, it failed dramatically, especially as it instigated the US ago enter WW1.
Hope you’re doing well,
LB
REPLY: In all analyses, you can never reduce anything to a single cause and effect. The sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7th, 1915, by a German U-boat was a major event during World War I, but it did not immediately cause the U.S. to enter the war. However, it significantly turned American public opinion against Germany and contributed to the U.S. eventually joining the conflict in 1917. Claiming that it was the unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in 1917 that instigated the war downplays the role of the Lusitania and the likelihood of those in the Deep State who sought war back then, counter to President Wilson’s neutrality position.
The Lusitania was a British passenger ship carrying 128 Americans (out of 1,198 total deaths). The attack provoked outrage in the U.S., but President Woodrow Wilson initially sought a diplomatic response rather than war. Germany argued the ship was carrying munitions (which was true, though it was primarily a passenger liner). The US was using civilians as cover for arms transfer to Britain when they pretended to be neutral. As shown here, the Germans even took an advertisement in the NY newspaper warning people not to sail on the Lusitania. Following international pressure, Germany temporarily halted unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915 to avoid further provoking the U.S.
Zimmermann Telegram & Final Push to War (1917):
The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 (sinking U.S. ships) and the Zimmermann Telegram (a secret German proposal for Mexico to ally against the U.S.) were the final triggers for U.S. entry into WWI in April 1917.
The Lusitania was a significant factor in shifting U.S. opinion against Germany because it was carrying civilians. Still, it was not the sole reason for the United States’ entry into the war. The combination of continued submarine attacks and the Zimmermann Telegram ultimately led to the U.S. declaring war in 1917.
My main point about the Lusitania is that it was a Neocon quasi-false flag. After years of denying the German claims, the government lied as always to get us into every war. The CIA and Pentagon did not exist during the Lusitania incident. The relevant U.S. agencies were the State, Navy, and War Departments. These departments, particularly the State Department under William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), were aware of and concerned about the British practice of carrying munitions on passenger ships.
The two members of Wilson’s Cabinet who were in a position over the question of war were the Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels (1862-1948), who was the last member of the cabinet to advocate for war in 1917, and the Secretary of War, Lindley Garrison (1764-1932), the Neocon who was replaced after the Lusitania. There is no evidence that Secretary of War Lindley Garrison authorized or had any direct involvement in the munitions shipment aboard the Lusitania. His department (War) was responsible for the Army, not naval shipping or maritime commerce.
The decision to load munitions on passenger liners like the Lusitania was a British Admiralty policy aimed at utilizing fast liners for vital war supplies while maintaining passenger service to generate revenue and improve public perception, thereby covering up their shipments. US covert involvement was limited to customs oversight and the controversial policy of allowing passengers on ships carrying munitions.
Garrison was a strong advocate for military preparednessbefore and after the sinking of the Lusitania. He advocated for building up the U.S. Army and National Guard to be ready for potential threats. His “Preparedness Movement” gained momentum after the Lusitania, much like Homeland Security was born from the WTC 911 attack. While Wilson pushed for neutrality and diplomatic responses even after the sinking, Garrison’s Neocon views clashed with Wilson and congressional leaders who felt his plans were too ambitious or militaristic. Garrison was compelled to resign in February 1916 primarily over disagreements with Wilson and Congress regarding the scale and control of military expansion. He had wanted a standing army of 140,000, which he called the Continental Army Plan, vs. strengthening the National Guard. The sinking of the Lusitania hardened attitudes towards Germany among many Americans.
While the sinking of the Lusitania caused massive outrage, shifted public opinion significantly against Germany, and led to demands for a strong diplomatic or even military response, it set in motion the calls to enter war and blamed the Germans as they hid the covert use of civilians to disguise the US violating its pretended neutrality position. By itself, it was not the final act to compel the US to enter the war. Secretary of War Garrison was pushing for a standing army. Garrison advocated for intervention using military force overseas, clashing with Wilson. This surfaced regarding Mexico. Garrison advocated for American intervention in the Mexican Revolution to restore order. In 1916, Garrison supported a plan for expanding the US military, which he referred to as the Continental Army Plan. Garrison’s proposal would establish a standing army of 140,000 and a national, volunteer reserve force of 400,000 men. Garrison encountered opposition from those who believed his plan went too far in establishing a large standing army. Allies in Congress convinced Wilson to back an alternative strategy which emphasized not Garrison’s national volunteer force, but a continued role for the states’ National Guard. Garrison resigned in February 1916 over these differences. Garrison’s public stance was that of a Neocon. He left office nearly a full year before the US actually declared war in April 1917.
While the U.S. government publicly downplayed the munitions cargo initially to maintain moral outrage against Germany, there’s no credible evidence, as always, that U.S. departments lied to President Wilson about its existence. Secretary Bryan claimed he actively warned Wilson because he believed munitions were present and made the ship a target. With the Germans taking out newspaper advertisements warning against sailing on the Lusitania, it is hard to imagine that there were no conversations, even at the Presidential level.
There was no specific Senate or House investigation focused solely on whether President Woodrow Wilson knew about the munitions aboard the RMS Lusitania before it was sunk in 1915. However, the issue was examined within broader contexts by other official U.S. bodies and touched upon in congressional hearings. Just as the investigations into whether FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, no such committee will EVER admit the wrongdoing by the President that took the country into war.
Congress did not even launch a formal investigation specifically targeting Wilson’s foreknowledge of the Lusitania’s cargo. While there was significant public debate and congressional interest in the sinking and its role in pushing the U.S. toward war, no committee was empaneled with the primary purpose of investigating the President’s prior awareness of the munitions. They too, conspired to cover up the foreknowledge.
The Mayer Arbitration (1915) was formed shortly after the sinking. The U.S. government initiated an investigation led by federal judge Julius Mayer, who was from the Second Circuit in New York City. He had presided over cases dealing with the Titanic. While primarily focused on establishing facts for potential legal claims against Germany, the investigation confirmed the Lusitania was carrying small-arms ammunition, claiming that they were non-explosive rifle cartridges and artillery shell casings (shrapnel shells without explosive charges). This information became part of the official record, meaning the government (including the administration) knew about the munitions afterthe sinking, but the investigation didn’t address what Wilson knew beforehand.
In the US, there were 67 claims for compensation filed against Cunard, which were all heard together in 1918 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Julius Mayer as well. In the Titanic case, he had ruled in favour of the shipping company. Mayer had a reputation for being pro-government in matters of national interest. The two sides agreed before the jury trial that no question would be raised regarding whether Lusitania had been armed or carrying troops or ammunition as part of the cover-up. Evidence produced by the British was presented only behind closed doors. The Defence of the Realm Act was invoked to protect British witnesses, ensuring that the truth would not be heard.
The decision was rendered on August 23rd, 1918, and Mayer’s judgement was that “the cause of the sinking was the illegal act of the Imperial German Government”, that two torpedoes had been involved, that the captain had acted properly, and emergency procedures had been up to the standard then expected. He ruled that further claims for compensation should be addressed to the German government (which eventually paid $2.5 million in 1925).
After WWI, this U.S.-German commission handled claims arising from the war, including those related to the Lusitania. Its findings (1923) explicitly stated that the presence of non-explosive munitions did not deprive the Lusitania’s passengers of their neutral rights or justify the attack without warning. Crucially, it found no evidence that the ship carried high explosives (like the German government claimed). Again, this established the nature of the cargo officially but didn’t investigate Wilson’s prior knowledge.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings in 1916 on broaderissues of preparedness and neutrality, leading up to the war. While the Lusitania was discussed, the focus was not on Wilson’s foreknowledge of its specific cargo. Critics of the administration questioned why Americans were allowed to travel on belligerent ships carrying contraband. Still, the hearings did not yield evidence or conclusions regarding Wilson’s personal knowledge before May 7, 1915.
Only during the 1030s, the Senate Special Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry (Nye Committee) investigated the arms industry and its influence on U.S. entry into World War I. It extensively documented the shipment of war materials(including those on the Lusitania) by U.S. companies to the Allies, often facilitated by the State Department despite U.S. neutrality. While it highlighted Wilson’s administration’s general awareness of and involvement in the arms trade with the Allies, it did not specifically focus on whether Wilson knew the Lusitania specifically carried munitions on that voyage before it sailed.
The U.S. government, particularly the State Department and Customs officials, was generally aware that British liners, such as the Lusitania, sometimes carried small arms and non-explosive munitions under the guise of passenger service, exploiting loopholes in neutrality rules. The government did everything it could to claim that President Wilson had no credible evidence that he received specific, advance warning about the exact nature and quantity of the munitions loaded onto the Lusitania for its final voyage before it sailed from New York. This was even though the German Embassy in Washington did place newspaper ads warning passengers that ships flying the British flag in the war zone were subject to destruction, but this was a general warning, not specific intelligence about the Lusitania’s cargo.
Wilson’s public stance after the sinking focused relentlessly on the illegality of attacking a passenger vessel without warning and the loss of civilian life, deliberately downplaying the munitions issue to maintain the moral high ground against Germany. While the fact that the Lusitania carried munitions was established by U.S. investigations after the sinking, and the broader policy of allowing munitions shipments to the Allies was controversial and later scrutinized (notably by the Nye Committee), there was never a dedicated Senate or House investigation specifically targeting President Wilson’s personal foreknowledge of the Lusitania’s cargo before its fateful voyage. Historians generally agree he likely knew such ships could carry contraband, but lacked specific, timely intelligence about the Lusitania’s final manifest.
Wilson was acutely aware of the deep public divisions and his own desire to avoid war if possible. He pursued a diplomatic path. His demands to Germany were extreme, pushing the US and Germany to the brink of war. Germany, wanting to avoid US entry at that time, eventually offered concessions and temporarily scaled back unrestricted submarine warfare (though it resumed in 1917). It is UNLIKELY that Wilson deliberately sought a false flag to enter World War I. Nevertheless, nobody wanted to look too closely at the actors in the State Department and the War Department who were eager to take the US into war against Germany.
Wilson was president between March 4th, 1913, and March 4th, 1921. Newton D. Baker (1871-1937), who had played an essential role in Woodrow Wilson’s nomination in the Democratic National Convention of 1912, was appointed Secretary of War by President Wilson, replacing Garrison. He remained in the Cabinet to the end of Wilson’s term of office. Although he was, as he himself said, so much of a pacifist that “he would fight for peace,” he soon submitted to Congress a plan for universal military conscription. He efficiently presided over the mobilization of more than four million men during World War I.
The press was divided back then and not entirely under the control of the Neocons, as they are today, pushing for World War III. Congress, while angry, largely followed President Wilson’s lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution first. The event marked a significant step towards war, erasing the pretense of neutrality and laying the groundwork for intervention. However, the actual, decisive push for war came nearly two years later, primarily driven by the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmermann Telegram in early 1917.
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