Sunday, May 29, 2016
By Paul Martin www.revolutionradio.com
How America compares to extinct societies historically

MAY 28, 2016

Alex Jones talks with Tim Kennedy about the growing number of factors which could lead to complete societal breakdown.

Global Alert News, May 28, 2016

Published on May 28, 2016
We are all swimming in a sea of lies and the depth of the deception is rising by the day in lockstep with the desperation of those in power. So called "science" sources are still pretending global climate engineering is only a "proposal" while anyone with functional eyes and a still working sense of reason can and should acknowledge the weather warfare assault has long since been an inarguable reality. The climate engineers now decide where it will rain, how much, and how toxic the rain will be.
About the rest of the headlines, there are many, and they are dire. Global economic collapse continues to progress, the Canadian government is hiding something at the Fort McMurray fire site, Al Qaeda leaders freely visit the US, CIA officers caught commanding Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabian publications are now stating 911 was an inside job, and the US government's war against the whistleblowers continues to accelerate.
The sand in the hourglass is running out, what will you do to help in the fight for the greater good? And when do you plan to take assertive (but peaceful) action to help expose the truth and wake the masses? No matter how dark the horizon looks, giving up can never be an option, ever. The only way we can know what good we can yet accomplish at this late hour is to fully focus on making a difference for the better each and every day.

CONSPIRACY: Global Elites Decide NOT to Elect Donald Trump

Published on May 27, 2016

In today's video, Christopher Greene of AMTV reports on the New World Order 2016.
MEMORIAL DAY SALE!! http://www.amtvmedia.com/re-direct-co...
Get my FREE Book! http://www.amtvmedia.com/re-direct-gr...

Website: http://www.amtvmedia.com/
On Demand: https://amtvmedia.vhx.tv/
Store: http://store.amtvmedia.com/


Published on May 27, 2016
Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | George Soros is buying massive amounts of gold as the Chinese debt bubble threatens the world economy. Gerald Celente makes bold statements with Gary Franchi on the Next News Network.

See the report here:

More from Gerald Celente:

Criminal Bankers Threaten Entire World Economy-Helen Chaitman

By Greg Hunter On May 25, 2016 www.usawatchdog.com

Helen Davis Chaitman was the lead attorney representing the victims of the $65 billion Bernie Madoff scam. Madoff had help form JP Morgan Chase Bank, and what she found out was stunning. Chaitman explains, “JP Morgan Chase was the subject of a criminal complaint . . . it was charged with a criminal violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, which is a felony violation. JP Morgan Chase disgorged a small percentage of the profits it made on the Madoff relationship, and the government called it quits. Nobody was fired. Nobody disgorged bonuses, they just went on doing other crimes.”

Chaitman, who wrote a book called “JP Madoff,” documented that JP Morgan Chase paid nearly $36 billion in fines for various crimes just in the last four years. Chaitman says all the big banks are basically criminal organizations, and “all of them regularly engage in fraud.” Chaitman also says, “I could have written this book about HSBC, Bank of America or Citi Group. All the banks, and the government encourages them to do this, all of the banks have been operating like criminal enterprises. . . . The bankers have become such criminals it threatens the entire world economy.”

A key component in the Madoff fraud was Madoff never bought securities for his victims even though he claimed he did. The client statements were bogus, and Chaitman says JP Morgan Chase knew about the fraud for years. Chaitman contends, “Madoff had a group of people, a small group of people, who were grossly over compensated, who would just make up the statements after the fact. They had no securities. They had no stocks. They just had pieces of paper saying they had stocks. . . . Madoff never bought the stocks. He just kept all the money, and in fact, that’s why JP Morgan liked him as a customer. He kept on deposit billions of dollars, and JP Morgan Chase was free to use that money for its own purposes.”

Why no jail time for the management at JP Morgan Chase for a slam dunk criminal fraud? Chaitman says, “We have a President who doesn’t believe criminal bankers belong in jail, and he appointed an attorney general, Eric Holder, who had this nonsensical rationalization that the banks were too big to put in jail. In other words, JP Morgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, who does business with 50% of American households, and 80% of fortune 500 companies, should keep all the criminal bankers because we would not be able to operate without them.”

Chaitman says JP Morgan Chase alone has paid fines for multiple crimes and frauds. Chaitman explains, “They have admitted to violating the foreign exchange rules. They pled guilty to a felony with respect to that. . . . They have defrauded veterans. They have defrauded credit card holders. They have defrauded homeowners. There is no group of customers they won’t defraud if they can enhance their profits. Yes, in the last four years alone, they have disgorged $36 billion as settlements of charges brought with respect to all these violations.”

Chaitman says the $36 billion in fines is just a fraction of the profit JP Morgan Chase is making by committing various frauds. Chaitman says, “If you look at their financial statements, they are generating huge profits. That’s why everyone loves Jamie Dimon, but a lot of people loved Carlo Gambino too. (Dimon reportedly has a net worth of $1 billion.)

Chaitman contends the big banks are like mobsters. Chaitman says, “There is no question about it. They operate illegally because they can generate huge profits by doing so. They go from one crime to another, and when they get caught committing one crime, nobody gets fired. Nobody disgorges bonuses. They just take those people and put them in a new area where they haven’t yet been prosecuted.”

What will happen to the customers of the big banks in the next financial meltdown? Chaitman warns, “The customers will be destroyed, and if the banks still have enough money to buy Washington, the government will protect them just like it has since 2008.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Helen Chaitman, author of the new book “JP Madoff.”

(There is much more in the video interview.)

After the Interview:

Chaitman is appealing two rulings in Florida and New York for victims of the Madoff fraud. She continues to try to get money back for victims from JP Morgan Chase. You can keep up with Helen and the Madoff scandal by going to JPMadoff.com. There is also a book buying link on the home page.

The Truth Behind The Surge In Conservative “Extremism”

Wednesday, 25 May 2016 01:54 Brandon Smith www.Alt-Market.com


The definition of “extremist” is a rather ambiguous issue primarily dependent on opinion rather than fact. That is to say, it is generally the people in power and their propaganda mouthpieces that determine who is an extremist and who is not. There is no set or fair standard.

If you are a quiet and passive sort of citizen with no political deviations and no thoughts outside of what is considered “mainstream,” then you are probably considered a non-threat to the establishment. If, however, you promote an ideal that is opposed to the establishment agenda and display a potential to actually ACT to fight for that ideal, then you will eventually be labeled an extremist.

So who sets the standard for extremism in America today? The responsibility of enforcement has been undertaken by the Department of Homeland Security. But, the initial profiling of extremism and the engineering behind the farcical talking points that the DHS often uses and spreads to local law enforcement agencies is the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC’s profiling guidelines on extremism and terrorism tend to end up in DHS and fusion center reports that are usually not meant for the eyes of the public. A more well-known example would be the exposure of the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) Report back in 2009 which listed Ron Paul supporters as being potential terrorists. The SPLC complained widely that the MIAC report should not have been abandoned after the uproar from conservatives, but instead, should have been pursued.

The SPLC lists “active anti-government groups” on their website with a nicely made but meaningless graph which would have you believe that such groups have exploded in number since 2008. How the SPLC designates groups as “anti-government” is entirely dependent on their own baseless opinions rather than any discernible or practical method. They could easily make their graph say anything they want it to say and pretend there is some kind of science to it.

Hilariously, the SPLC lists my own website, Alt-Market, as an “anti-government group” under Pennsylvania, the state I lived in when Alt-Market was first established. Apparently, they consider a website a “group,” and I suppose I should be flattered that my individual efforts have been effective enough to constitute a group-sized threat in their minds.

I am also not “anti-government.” I am anti-corrupt government, but the SPLC does not seem to care at all about this kind of distinction.

I can say that Alt-Market is certainly not a group. While I do promote the formation of private barter groups as well as mutual aid and community security groups, these groups are in no way under the control of Alt-Market. If the SPLC considers me, all by my lonesome, as an anti-government group, then I question the validity of their list. If they had some confusion as to what Alt-Market was, all they had to do was ask me, but they never have.

I addressed the SPLC directly and outlined the corruption inherent in their institution years ago in my article ‘A Message To The SPLC From A Montana “Extremist.” To summarize, the SPLC’s goal is to promote Cultural Marxism while incessantly demonizing the opposing belief system — true conservatism. They do this through the use of an old propaganda ploy called ‘false association.’

If you examine the SPLC’s list of people they consider prominent extremists in the U.S., you will find a mixture of liberty movement proponents with their photos pasted right next to white supremacists and Klu Klux Klan members. This is not an accident. The strategy is to associate liberty activists with racists in the minds of the SPLC’s gullible readership without risking lawsuit by defamation.

For example, the SPLC has never (as far as I know) directly labeled liberty voices like Stewart Rhodes or Chuck Baldwin as “racists” or supremacists. However, they will work very hard in various media including their magazine ‘Intelligence Report’ (equating “intelligence” with the SPLC is a laughable premise) to influence the public to attach ideas of liberty to racial supremacy as if they are part of the same ideological movement.

Now frankly, I do not care if an individual or group “hates” another individual or group. As long as they do not harm anyone, invade their privacy or impede their constitutional rights, then it is none of my business. This does not mean I agree with them, but they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe.

The SPLC, along with the “extreme left,” though, does not think that people have a right to believe what they want to believe, and this is where problems start to emerge. The movement to criminalize “hate speech” may be a paper tiger, it may not. According to some polls, 41 percent of Americans and over half of Democrats support the criminalization of hate speech.

Again, if such speech is criminalized, then who gets to determine the definition of what hate speech is? Yes, most likely it will be social justice think-tanks like the SPLC.

That which constitutes “hate speech” and that which constitutes “extremism” is invariably conservative in nature… according to the SPLC and the DHS. Though you will see far more race-hate related speech from groups like Black Lives Matter, you will probably never see them listed on the SPLC’s website.

Conservative opposition to illegal immigration, to the medieval tyranny of Islamic sharia law, to government enforcement of transgender ideology on private property, along with conservative support of 2nd Amendment rights of firearms ownership and 1st Amendments rights in the face of “hate speech” legislation have all been categorized as extremism or racism by the SPLC. This is not simply a battle of ideas with no tangible consequences outside of the academic. The poison of cultural Marxism championed by the SPLC is leaching into everyday life.

I was sent this example recently; a story out of Washington D.C. in which a man in a wig entered the women’s bathroom at a Giant supermarket (private property). A female security guard at the establishment forced “Ebony Belcher” (see photo below) to leave the bathroom according to store policy after the man refused to heed verbal warnings. The security guard cited that there was no law allowing transgenders to violate the store’s bathroom policy.

Belcher then proceeded to file a complaint with D.C. police. Instead of shrugging off the incident as a matter of private property as they should have, police arrested the guard pursuant of “hate crime” charges.


This is merely one incident, yes, but it is now one of MANY examples of government force backing cultural Marxists, and is representative of where the entire nation is headed if the SPLC and the federal government get their way.

The position that private property owners have the right to restrict a person who has the genetics and biology of a man to male bathroom facilities in order to protect the privacy and safety of their female customers is now being called a hate crime. That which is entirely practical and sane today will be labeled dangerous “extremism” tomorrow.

Therefore, I would submit to you that there is no “surge” in conservative extremism. Instead, normal longstanding conservative principles, along with conservative groups and individuals are being increasingly and arbitrarily labeled as “extremists.” We are not necessarily becoming more dangerous than we were before, more of us are just being targeted as dangerous by well-placed political minorities in a war of cultural dominance.

That said, conservative individuals and groups that are targeted will of course move to defend themselves. The orchestrated demonization and sublimation of conservatives on the part of cultural Marxists is the very definition of true extremism, and when one group decides to implement an extremist methodology in order to attain power over others, it is inevitable that they will invite an equal or greater opposing reaction.

The Washington Post recently warned of this reaction in an exposé titled Primed To Fight The Government.

The article begins in typical establishment propaganda fashion by immediately working to inoculate readers against conservative or liberty movement viewpoints. The SPLC is, of course, brought in to repeat their standard list of lies and half-truths while noting that their list of extremist groups has skyrocketed ever since 2008 — when America’s first black president was elected. This is surely intended once again to associate liberty activists with racism.

There is no mention of the numerous groups and individuals on their list (myself included) who started their work long before 2008 and have been as consistently critical of white republicans as they have been of Barack Obama.

The Post then finally allows the primary subjects of the article, B.J. Soper and his Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, to give their voice on the matter. Soper comes off as even handed and solidly grounded, with views easily supported by verifiable evidence; he did not appear as “extreme” as the SPLC might prefer.

If The Washington Post and the SPLC are truly curious as to the source of the supposed surge in conservatives “ready to go to war” with the government, I would challenge them to set aside their bias (or ignore their corporate handlers) and look more closely at the behavior of the government today as well as the extremists on the “Left” side of the political spectrum.

Perhaps they should take a more mathematical approach to their views on the socialization of America and its clear negative effects on our economic future.

Perhaps they should take a closer look at the UN’s “Strong Cities Network,” which is a program in collaboration with governments around the world including the U.S. to weaponize local communities against any behavior considered “extremist”; promoting a world of self-policing and self censoring towns and cities while instituting anti-extremist (mostly anti-conservative) policies on an Orwellian scale.

Perhaps they should examine how free speech is being progressively eroded with legal “exceptions” in the name of protecting people’s tender feelings or protecting the public from “dangerous ideas.” True conservatives understand that NO ONE has the right to limit the speech of everyone in the name of personal comfort for an overly-sensitive few, and for some reason this makes us extremists.

Perhaps they should re-think their accusations of “racism” against the tens of millions of Americans of all ethnicities who stand against illegal immigration. Perhaps by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration do so based on realistic economic and social dangers is pressuring conservatives to see armed preparedness as the only avenue left to them.

Or perhaps the establishment should acknowledge that they have been militarizing local police forces and indoctrinating them with assertions that conservatives are a menace, a racist, fascist ticking time bomb ready to explode and that must be contained or re-educated. Conservatives are not going to simply stand by idly forever while this kind of fourth generation warfare continues unchallenged. Obviously we are preparing for a fight. When one is attacked, defense is natural.

As I point out in my article The Weirdest Possible Outcomes For The Strangest Election In History, the potential for violent divisions within the U.S. over the course of this election year is very high. In fact, the stage is pretty well set for conflict regardless of who becomes president.

The mob actions and growing madness of the extreme left, instigated and in some cases funded (Ferguson, Missouri) by elitists like George Soros is going to force conservatives into a position of armed reaction. It is only a matter of time. And perhaps this is what the elites prefer — Americans fighting and killing other Americans while they sit back and enjoy the show. After all, the failure of America is a perfect justification for the greater influence of globalism to stem the tide of “nationalist fervor.” And in a totally globalized and collectivized world, conservatism has no place.

Conservatives are called “extremists” because the establishment needs an excuse to get rid of us. We are threat, yes, but only to power mongers and their collectivist hordes. More and more of us grow awake and aware of the program each day. As a result of this awakening, we end up becoming more extreme by mainstream definition in order to protect ourselves and our values. Ultimately, to be an extremist conservative is not a crime against humanity as some would have us believe. To be an extremist conservative in the face of open conflagration against the principles of freedom is to be on the right side of history.

Fannie, Freddie and the Secrets of a Bailout With No Exit


Washington took over the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the collapse of the housing market in 2008. Credit Ethan Miller/Getty Images

When Washington took over the beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the collapse of the housing market and the financial crisis of 2008, it was with the implicit promise that they would be returned to shareholders after being nursed back to health.

But now, with the unsealing of documents this week that were produced as part of a lawsuit filed against the government, new evidence is coming to light on how intimately the White House was involved in the Treasury’s decision in August 2012 to keep all the companies’ profits for the government. That move effectively maintained Fannie’s and Freddie’s status as wards of the state.

The newly released documents go beyond previous disclosures in the case and make clear that the Obama administration never had any intention of restoring Fannie and Freddie, which enjoyed implicit backing from the government before the takeover, to their status as stand-alone entities.

An email from Jim Parrott, then a top White House official on housing finance, was sent the day the so-called profit sweep was announced. It said the change was structured to ensure that the companies couldn’t “repay their debt and escape as it were.”

The documents also show the Treasury moving to modify the terms of the mortgage finance giants’ $187.5 billion bailout shortly after a July 2012 meeting when the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie’s and Freddie’s regulator, learned that they were about to enter “the golden years” of profitability.

Since then, Fannie and Freddie have returned to the Treasury over $50 billion more than they received in the bailout. But the amount they owe to the government remains outstanding.

The new materials cast further doubt on arguments made in court by government lawyers that the profit sweep came about because Fannie and Freddie were in a death spiral and taxpayers needed protection from future losses. Documents unsealed last month also served to undermine that legal stance. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

The trickle of documents comes years after Fannie and Freddie shareholders sued the government, contending that its decision regarding the companies’ profits was illegal. Defending against an array of these suits, lawyers for the Justice Department have requested confidential treatment for thousands of pages of materials. In a case brought in Federal Claims Court, the government’s lawyers asserted presidential privilege in 45 documents.

The Treasury’s integral role in the profit sweep comes through clearly in the new materials, indicating that it was in charge of decisions on Fannie and Freddie, and that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, created by Congress in 2008 as a purportedly independent regulator, did as directed.

“He referred to the next 8 years as likely to be ‘the golden years of GSE earnings.’”
Fannie official on profits. Justice Dept. lawyers claimed Fannie and Freddie were in a death spiral.
In the law setting up the F.H.F.A., Congress required officials to ensure that the companies were operated in a safe and sound manner with an adequate capital cushion.

The profit sweep, the aggrieved shareholders contend, violated that part of the law because it barred the companies from being able to amass capital.

In a statement, Adam Hodge, a spokesman for the Treasury, said the profit sweep “ended the vicious cycle where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drew against Treasury’s backstop to pay the 10 percent dividend owed to taxpayers.”

The recent economic performance of both companies, Mr. Hodge added, further undermines complaints about the sweep because “the required dividends to taxpayers would have exceeded their income in five of the past six quarters.” Finally, he noted, the best way to end the conservatorship is through comprehensive housing finance reform legislation.

Preventing the companies from using their profits to rebuild a strong capital position was an explicit goal of the Obama administration, the newly unsealed materials show. In an email sent the day the profit sweep was announced, Mr. Parrott said diverting Fannie’s and Freddie’s profits would eliminate “the possibility that they ever go (pretend) private again.”

Sending a message to Fannie’s and Freddie’s shareholders that they should have no hope of profiting from the companies’ recovery appeared to be top of mind to Mr. Parrott, the documents show. In another email sent the day the sweep was disclosed, he assured Treasury officials that “all the investors will get this very quickly.”

In an email, Mr. Parrott later said that his comment about investors referred to those holding Fannie’s and Freddie’s mortgage-backed securities, who would recognize that the Treasury had addressed the problem of the companies drawing from the government to pay dividends owed to taxpayers. “I realize that you appear to want me to be referring to the G.S.E.s’ shareholders, but I am not,” Mr. Parrott said, a reference to government-sponsored enterprises.

Investors got the message. But some viewed the action as illegal and began filing lawsuits against the government.

Unlike shareholders of other bailout recipients, including Citigroup, Bank of America and even the insurer American International Group, Fannie and Freddie investors have not been able to participate in the rebound at the companies as their operations boomed.

“We’ve closed off possibility that they every go (pretend) private again.”
Email from White House economic adviser on Fannie and Freddie.
Mr. Parrott, now a fellow at Urban Institute and owner of Falling Creek Advisors, a consultant to financial institutions, declined to comment on the matter.

The unsealed documents indicate an intense desire to get rid of Fannie and Freddie as independent entities once and for all. They do not show any concern among Treasury officials that their actions on the profit sweep might violate the law.

Only a small portion of the materials produced in the case in Federal Claims Court has seen the light of day. Approximately 50 documents were released on Wednesday to lawyers representing Arnetia Joyce Robinson, an individual investor who sued the government in Federal District Court in Kentucky last October.

According to that lawsuit, Ms. Robinson, a retired bank manager and loan officer, bought Fannie and Freddie shares in September 2008 to help fund her retirement.

Ms. Robinson’s suit is one of several that have been filed by investors, some of them giant institutions and speculators in Fannie and Freddie who bought shares after the bailout, contending that the government’s profit sweep was illegal. One case from 2013 was brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs actions taken by government agencies.

Royce C. Lamberth, the district court judge overseeing the 2013 suit, dismissed it in September 2014, but the case is on appeal. In dismissing the complaint, Judge Lamberth seemed to rely on the government’s contention that Fannie and Freddie were in a death spiral.

But the documents released on Wednesday indicate that the financial projections for Fannie and Freddie the judge received were significantly out of date. These projections, showing large losses in the near term, were produced to the court by the Treasury in a document dated June 2012, but they actually contained figures from September 2011, when the companies’ operations had not yet begun to turn around.

Those projections, produced by Grant Thornton for the Treasury to use in valuing its investment in Fannie and Freddie, did not account for improvements in the housing market that took place in late 2011 and early 2012. As the unsealed materials show, Treasury officials knew in the summer of 2012 that Fannie and Freddie had turned the corner and appeared to be well on their way to a strong recovery.

Experts disagree about what the government’s role in housing should be and whether Fannie and Freddie should be wound down, replaced by some sort of new mortgage finance guarantee.

The significance of these documents, however, goes well beyond the future of housing finance. They demonstrate the perils of allowing the government to act in secrecy. In asking for confidentiality surrounding its actions, the government argued that the release of such documents would roil the financial markets. What seems clearer all the time is that their release will instead help the public understand what the government did here and why.

We’re In The Eye Of A Global Financial Hurricane

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog

The only “growth” we’re experiencing are the financial cancers of systemic risk and financialization’s soaring wealth/income inequality.

The Keynesian gods have failed, and as a result we’re in the eye of a global financial hurricane.


The Keynesian god of growth has failed.

The Keynesian god of borrowing from the future to fund today’s consumption has failed.

The Keynesian god of monetary stimulus / financialization has failed.

Every major central bank and state worships these Keynesian idols:

1. Growth. (Never mind the cost or what kind of growth–all growth is good, even the financial equivalent of aggressive cancer).

2. Borrowing from the future to fund today’s keg party, worthless college diploma, particle board bookcase, stock buy-back, etc. (oops, I mean “investment”)–a.k.a. deficit spending which is a polite way of saying this unsavory truth: stealing from our children and grandchildren to fund our lifestyles today.

3. Monetary stimulus / financialization. If private investment sags (because there are few attractive investments at today’s nosebleed valuations and few attractive investments in a global economy burdened with massive over-production and over-capacity), drop interest rates to zero (or below zero) to “stimulate” new borrowing… for whatever: global carry trades, bat guano derivatives, etc.

Here is my definition of Financialization:

Financialization is the mass commodification of debt and debt-based financial instruments collaterized by previously low-risk assets, a pyramiding of risk and speculative gains that is only possible in a massive expansion of low-cost credit and leverage.

That is a mouthful, so let’s break it into bite-sized chunks.

Home mortgages are a good example of how financialization increases financial profits by jacking up risk and distributing it to suckers who don’t recognize the potential for staggering losses.

In the good old days, home mortgages were safe and dull: banks and savings and loans institutions issued the mortgages and kept the loans on their books, earning a stable return for the 30 years of the mortgage’s term.

Then the financialization machine revolutionized the home mortgage business to increase profits. The first step was to generate entire new types of mortgages with higher profit margins than conventional mortgages. These included no-down payment mortgages (liar loans), no-interest-for-the-first-few-years mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages, home equity lines of credit, and so on.

This broadening of options (and risks) greatly expanded the pool of people who qualified for a mortgage. In the old days, only those with sterling credit qualified for a home mortgage. In the financialized realm, almost anyone with a pulse could qualify for an exotic mortgage.

The interest rate, risk and profit margins were all much higher for the originators. What’s not to like? Well, the risk of default is a problem. Defaults trigger losses.

Financialization’s solution: package the risk in safe-looking securities and offload the risk onto suckers and marks. Securitizing mortgages enabled loan originators to skim the origination fees and profits up front and then offload the risk of default and loss onto buyers of the mortgage securities.

Securitization was tailor-made for hiding risk deep inside apparently low-risk pools of mortgages and rigging the tranches to maximize profits for the packagers at the expense of the unwary buyers, who bought high-risk securities under the false premise that they were “safe home mortgages.”

Financialization— which can only expand to dominate an economy if it is supported by a central bank bent on expanding credit–has two inevitable and highly toxic consequences:

Risk seeps into every nook and cranny of the financial system, greatly increasing the odds of a systemic domino reaction in financial meltdowns. This is precisely what we saw in the 2008-09 Global Financial Meltdown (GFM): supposedly “contained” subprime mortgages toppled dominoes left and right, bringing the entire risk-saturated system to its knees.

Extraordinary wealth and income inequality, as those closest to the central bank money/credit spigots can scoop up income-producing assets first at much lower costs than Mom and Pop Main Street investors.

The rising anger of the masses left behind by the central bank / financialization wealth harvesting machine is the direct result of Keynesian monetary stimulus that rewards debt-based speculative gambles by those closest to the cheap-credit spigots.

As I explain in my book Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, the only possible output of central bank monetary stimulus is financialization, and the only possible output of financialization is unprecedented wealth and income inequality.

The global financial system is in the eye of an unprecedented hurricane. While central bankers are congratulating themselves on their god-like mastery of Nature, and secretly praying to the idols of the Keynesian Cargo Cult every night, the inevitable consequence of borrowing from the future, the obsession with “growth” at any cost and financialization /monetary stimulus, a.k.a. the rich get richer thanks to central banks is systemic collapse.

Don’t fall for the mainstream media and politicos’ shuck-and-jive that all is well and “growth” will return any day now. The only “growth” we’re experiencing are the financial cancers of systemic risk and financialization’s soaring wealth/income inequality.

Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood?

By Brandon Smith www.Alt-Market.com


I recently received requests from two different readers, one asking for articles covering the “mindset” of globalists (why they do what they do), and another request for articles covering globalist “occultism.” I find that these two topics are very difficult to pursue with a large number of people for a few reasons:

1) Many people do not accept the reality that a group of financial elitists colluding (conspiring) to obtain total global power even exists. Therefore, in order to delve into the topic of the globalist mindset with these “skeptics,” I would first have to re-cover page after page of evidence showing that they not only exist and collude, but that they openly boast about their plans on a regular basis. This is time consuming, to say the least.

2) For some of the people that do eventually accept the reality of a globalist cabal, the argument eventually arises that “yes, there is collusion, but it is merely driven by greed and profit motive,” and not as nefarious as we conspiracy tin-foil mad-hatters imagine.

3) For others, there is a full acceptance of the reality of an organized globalist cult, but they argue that these people are simply a product of a corrupt and ill-structured socio-political system. That is to say, they think that the globalists are a symptom of the troubles that plague humanity, rather than a cause.

This argument is often made by people promoting their own collectivist agenda in one form or another (socialists, communists, scientific dictatorships controlled by people supposedly much smarter than the rest of us, one world-one mind spiritually unhinged theosophic weirdos, etc.). They claim a new system, their system, is the solution rather than getting rid of the globalists, which they say would only leave a “power vacuum” for more tyrants to take their place.

4) Finally, there are the evangelical revelations seekers obsessed with Armageddon. They fully accept that the globalists exist, that they conspire internationally to gain power and influence towards the goal of a “new world order” and that they are essentially evil minded in their intentions. However, they argue that it is either futile to fight against such people because they are supported by power from somewhere beyond, or they even argue that to fight against the globalists is wrong because it is in defiance of the plan put forward in the Bible.

So, as you can see, it is a veritable circus of horrors whenever I write on the subject of who the globalists really are and what they really want. Beyond that, it is very difficult to examine this subject matter, even with ample evidence, without coming off like a wackaloon.

It is hard enough convincing people of the obvious economic crisis facing America and the rest of the world and convincing them to put in minimal effort to prepare, let alone convincing them of the psychopathic and cult-like nature of the elite behind that crisis. In other words, if you approach someone new to this information cold and hit them right away with tales of luciferians, Washington D.C. child pedo-rings and gay romp power-club parties in the California Redwoods with a giant stone owl called “Molech,” you probably aren’t going to get your foot in the door.

That said, I’ll address the inevitable arguments above very quickly before I begin my analysis of the Globalist mind.

1) Psychopaths tend to naturally gravitate towards positions of power, and despite some foolish assumptions out there that these people are too volatile to play nice with others, they do in fact work together as long as there is a guarantee of mutual benefit.

Elites have conspired throughout history, this is well documented fact. I find it amazing that some folks cannot grasp the idea that they might also be conspiring today. If you need evidence of such collusion, you are welcome to read my articles The Fall Of America Signals The Rise Of The New World Order and Order Out Of Chaos: The Doctrine That Runs The World. If you want to know where to find these people simply look at the memberships of institutions designed specifically to promote globalism – Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, The Club Of Rome, Rand Corporation, the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, ect. Though they often obscure their more malicious intentions, globalists are relatively easy to find.

One might argue that the problem of organized psychopathy cannot be dealt with unless one confronts individual psychopathy. I’m sorry to say that at least 10% of the population (according to psychologist Carl Gustav Jung) at any given time has elements of inborn latent psychopathy and at least 1% is actively psychopathic. You will NEVER remove psychopathy from humanity. It is an inborn quality. What you can do, though, is disrupt or destroy organizations of people that foster and elevate psychopaths. Organized psychopathy is the real and pressing problem.

2) If you need convincing that the globalists are not just “greedy capitalists” out to make a buck at the expense of the world, check out my article Global Eitism: The Character Traits Of Truly Evil People and read some of the quotes directly attributed to them. Their goal is to gain as much power over the masses as possible. They see themselves as modern Pharaohs, not as businessmen. Wealth is a side-note.

3) There have been only fleeting instances of societies without the all-pervasive influence of organized elitism in history. From these minor instances, though, we can see bursts of human potential, productivity and invention, as well as greater respect for inherent conscience and justice. Sadly, no one in the past has ever taken the action of removing elitist groups entirely as a factor of influence.

Anyone who claims that the globalists are nothing more than a “symptom” is probably trying to sell you on an ideology rather than a real solution. The fact of the matter is, we have never lived in a world without the influence of globalist conspiracy. They are like a cancer that has turned psychopathy into a religion. Removing the globalists should be a top priority. NO system is going to succeed, regardless of how brilliantly conceived, unless the elitists are out of the picture.

I would even venture to say that the people who argue that the globalists are nothing more than a symptom are in fact HELPING the globalists by distracting activists away from the real task at hand. Playing at philosophy and theoretical society building will not change the existing power structure in any way, nor will it remove the muzzle of a rifle from the back of your head as you stare down at the ditch that is to become your final resting place.

4) The majority of the Bible is composed of stories of good standing against evil, and I simply cannot take anyone seriously who argues that the Bible demands we sit idle in the face of despotism. I don’t believe in the modernized “Left Behind” interpretations of “apocalypse” and even if I did, different groups have been saying that the end times are right around the corner for ages. Frankly, no one knows or will know if such an event of metaphysical proportions is taking place anyway.

Now, I do believe in full-spectrum crisis and societal collapse, because these events have happened over and over again and can even be reasonably predicted according to past indicators. I also believe that current events are rife with such indicators and that a collapse is taking place in stages today. I also know that there are groups of elites engineering this collapse and I know exactly why because they have openly admitted their goals (read my article The Economic End Game Explained). Apocalypse is not my concern. Right and wrong, justice and tyranny are my concerns. I’ll leave the rest to more omniscient and omnipresent beings.

The Problem We Face Is Organized Evil

Now that the above questions are out of the way we can jump into the core of the problem. And no, the core of the problem is not the “system” we live in per say, or our methodology of living and progressing as a species. Again, there are too many eggheads in the liberty movement that like to pretend they have grand and ingenious new ways of looking at the world, and if only we would just “listen to their brilliant vision” everything would change for the better. When you boil down their philosophies you often find they have no new ideas whatsoever, or that their ideas cannot be implemented because they have not dealt with the elephant in the room — the globalists.

Philosophy without tangible action and verifiable results is ultimately useless in the face of true evil. Intellectual warriors rarely win wars, but they do often die horribly as a result of their naivety and defenselessness.

To answer the question in the title of this article, yes, the globalists are in fact evil and the only misunderstandings are on the part of wide-eyed skeptics that have bought into the idea that “evil” is a moral conception created by religion rather than an inherent quality of human beings.

As Carl Jung discovered in his studies on the collective unconscious, people are born with inherent and conflicting conceptions and traits, or “dualities.” Good vs. Evil is an important duality we all come in to the world dealing with, it is not a mere product of environment or religious influence. That which is “good” is often dictated by what we call “conscience,” which again is an inherent idea or “voice,” and is only partly influenced by environment. The fact of inherent character traits and universal moral codes is present in anthropological studies as well as psychological studies beyond Jung’s very extensive work.

To define evil, we would have to look at those ideas and actions that are opposite inherent conscience. The globalists have basically constructed a festering belief system around everything that is contrary to our moral compass. I will attempt to dissect some elements of that belief system from a secular point of view. Wish me luck…

The Rest Of The Story Here

The Government Is Using The Antiquities Act To Steal Your Land

Published on May 16, 2016

Recently, Senator Harry Reid urged President Obama to use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to grab the Nevada Red Butte under the auspices of preserving scientific and sacred Native American lands. Besides violating American's 10th amendment rights, this report discusses how the federal government rarely keeps their promises; rather they quickly sell to large global corporate projects which ruin and neglect the lands.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show