A US-enabled Israeli hunting season on Iraqi militias had been going on for months before the first US casualty
Marko Marjanović1 Jan 20
The US had been using its position in Iraq and Syria to allow Israel kill Iraqi servicemen since July
As the Trump administration would have it history began yesterday. On December 27 A rocket salvo struck a US base near Kirkuk killing a US contractor and wounding four US soldiers, as well as, according to the Americans, two Iraqi soldiers.
So two days later the US — deducing that the attack must have come from the Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah paramilitary that right now hates the Americans’ guts the most — bombed five Kataib facilities on the Iraq-Syrian border, ie nowhere near Kirkuk, killing 25 and wounding 55 Kataib paramilitaries that almost certainly had nothing to do with the Kirkuk base attack themselves.
So according to the Americans albeit their airstrikes, against an outfit that is formally part of Iraq’s official security forces, may have technically violated Iraqi sovereignty that is a technicality since the paramilitary is a proxy for Iran, and in any case these Iranian proxies started it by killing an American first in attacks on guests of the Iraqi government.
Americans also suppose that since they have been granted basing rights in Iraq and the right to act militarily (against ISIS) on Iraq’s territory that comes with the right to defend themselves.
Americans also emphasize the attack allegedly by Kataib also wounded two Iraqi soldiers.
So the American telling is something like ‘Iranian proxies are attacking us who are guests of the Iraqi government and hurting Iraqi servicemen in the process, so we bombed them to defend ourselves and teach them a lesson.’
On its face that sounds almost reasonable, but there is a number of problems with such a retelling.
Firstly, as probably the single most influential man in Iraq, the Shia cleric al-Sistani pointed out, even if it were true that Kataib paramilitaries had gone rogue in attacking US facilities it does not follow that Americans, a foreign military with mere basing rights, have the liberty to take matters into their own hands and be the judge, jury and executioner in revenge attacks on a state-sanctioned paramilitary 500 kilometers from the place of the actual attack on the US base.
Secondly, there is a matter of scale. Because “Iranian proxies” (as Americans would have it) injured a pair of Iraqi servicemen it does not follow that Americans are now entitled to kill or wound seventy-seven Kataib paramilitaries who are also Iraqi servicemen.
Thirdly, unlike the Trump gang would have it, history did not begin on December 27th. Between July 19 and September 22 Iraqi paramilitaries were hit in their Iraqi bases on at least eight different occasions. In August the Israeli PM Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was carrying out these strikes “against Iranian consolidation”. (That was also just the latest escalation on top of Israeli strikes on Iraqi paramilitaries positioned against ISIS in eastern Syria.)
However, as Iraqis fully understand Israel does not have the capability to strike targets in Iraq (and eastern Syria) without US logistical and intelligence support and the political go-ahead. These were Israeli drone strikes but originating in US/Kurdish-controlled NE Syria and using US-controlled airspace. What is more, quite possibly the Americans were using their presence in Iraq to supply Israelis with intelligence on Kataib and other paramilitaries.
It is also around this time that small-scale artillery (mainly mortar) attacks on US facilities in Iraq started. The only thing new about the December 27 attack was that it resulted in a US fatality. So no, Iraqi paramilitaries did not all of a sudden, and out of the blue, started targeting Americans in Iraq because they are such obedient Iranian proxies, and on the behalf of Tehran, but because they were being killed in their own country (and in neighboring Syria) and the US was to blame.
There have been well over 50 Iraqi paramilitary fatalities in Iraq alone, before the first American died in a retaliatory attack. The blame here is not on Iran, the blame is on those who decided to pull Netanyahu’s chestnuts out of the fire even if it risked US troops in the region.
The only surprising thing about all of this has been how long it took for the backlash to catch up with the Trump gang. So of course instead of counting their lucky stars they went and escalated, so now they are going to reap a bigger backlash, quite possibly in the form of a renewed legal effort to oust them, albeit the nationalist Sadr has said he’ll be looking into “other means” if that doesn’t pan out.
I have been wondering for the past year if the inevitable war with Iran would start before the election of 2020 or after; it looks like I have my answer. Of course, the Iranians can't let this strike go unchecked because it would make them appear weak. They will respond, the question is, to what degree? I suspect that this will translate to a strike on US assets in Syria, where we are most vulnerable. Also, there is a possibility of strikes on Saudi or Israeli targets, along with a lockdown of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, but these would be more extreme measures. Iran now has a classified military agreement with Russia that may include a defense pact and any direct confrontation could illicit a Russian response. For now, it would appear that the US will have yet another troop surge in Iraq, and that Trump's big talk of "bringing the soldiers home" was a farce from the beginning. As we warned here at Alt-Market, Trump is a neo-con in patriot's clothing, a globalist puppet, and he will do as his masters tell him to. If war erupts, the US economy, already in the middle of a crash, will implode completely. This kind of crisis is purely in benefit to the globalists...
The United States killed Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force and spearhead of Iran’s spreading military influence in the Middle East, on Friday in an air strike at Baghdad airport, the Pentagon and Iran said.
Top Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an adviser to Soleimani, was also killed in the attack, a militia spokesman said.
The high-profile assassinations are likely to be a massive blow to Iran, which has been locked in a long conflict with the United States that escalated sharply last week with an attack on the US embassy in Iraq by pro-Iranian militiamen following a US air raid on the Kataib Hezbollah militia, founded by Muhandis.
“At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qassem Soleimani,” the Pentagon said in a statement.
“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” it added.
PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― Over 200 Republican lawmakers and two Democrats signed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Louisiana pro-life law it is considering, stating that legal battles over abortion “rights” show the “unworkability” of that term as defined in Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade and its sister decision, Doe v. Bolton, imposed abortion on demand across the U.S. in 1973.
“[We] respectfully suggest that the court’s struggle—similar to dozens of other courts’ herculean struggles in this area—illustrates the unworkability of the ‘right to abortion’ found in Roe and the need for the Court to take up the issue of whether Roe and [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled,” the 39 senators and 168 representatives professed. (Link to full brief here.)
The amicus brief was filed by Americans United for Life in support of the case Gee v. June Medical Services, LLC, which is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Both pro-life and pro-abortion activists believe that the case may lead to a weakening or even overturning of Roe v. Wade.
June Medical Services is an abortion facility in Shreveport, Louisiana. The abortion business seeks to overturn the provisions of Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act which require abortuaries to have the same safety standards as other outpatient surgical centers. These include the criterion that abortionists must have admitting privileges at one of their local hospitals.
The amicus brief argues that the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act is constitutional. It also states that Louisiana’s abortion facilities, including June Medical Services, “have a long history of serious health and safety violations.”
“In fact, the Fifth Circuit found the history of health and safety code violations at June Medical and Delta Clinic as well as ‘generally unsafe conditions and protection of rapists’ to be ‘horrifying,’” the brief remarked.
According to a press release, those who signed the amicus brief were led by House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Senator John Kennedy (R-La.), Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Congressman Mike Johnson (R-La.) The two Democrats who signed were Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
“I’m proud to lead the fight in Congress defending Louisiana’s pro-life law that will soon come before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Scalise said.
“Innocent life must be protected at every stage, and I urge the Supreme Court to uphold this law which ensures the health and safety regulations meant to protect Louisianans from the very abortionists who don't want high standards.”
Senator Kennedy emphasized that the case will determine whether or not abortion businesses have to follow the same safety standards protecting women at other surgical centers.
“When our Supreme Court justices take up this Louisiana case, they will be deciding whether abortion clinics should be required to maintain the same standards as any other outpatient surgical clinic,” Kennedy said.
“The health and lives of these women are at stake,” he continued.
“We aren’t asking abortion clinics to close down; we’re demanding they protect their patients by securing admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It’s a common sense law, and we need to uphold this law which helps protect the lives of women and their unborn children.”
Congressman Mike Johnson hinted at the far-reaching impact of this case, particularly regarding states’ rights.
“This case is vitally important for two reasons,” Johnson stated.
“It presents a key opportunity for the Supreme Court to affirm the right of states to enact common sense health and safety regulations to protect women in vulnerable situations,” he explained.
“The Court can also affirm Louisiana's challenge to third-party standing, and ensure that future court challenges to abortion-related regulations cannot be brought by the notorious abortion industry that profits off substandard practices and dangerous clinic conditions.”
Johnson called the case a “landmark battle.”
“In a year where the abortion movement has swept state legislatures to the extreme in states like New York and Virginia, it is important we defend the right of states like Louisiana to pass legislation to do the opposite and do more to protect the life of the unborn,” added Senator Blackburn.
An opposing brief was also filed. It was signed by 197 congressmen, mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri filed his own pro-life brief in June.
2020 Democrats react: ‘Abortion is a fundamental right’
Abortion proponents are distressed by the predominantly Republican amicus brief’s attack on the “unworkability” of the Roe v. Wade abortion “rights” definition.
“Anti-abortion politicians are using every trick in the book to ban abortion,” tweeted Planned Parenthood’s CEO Alexis McGill Johnson.
“Asking the Supreme Court to reconsider overturning Roe is an assault on our basic rights, plain and simple.”
2020 Democratic presidential candidate and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg underscored his financial support for abortion in his Twitter reaction.
“A woman's access to abortion isn't a privilege. It's a fundamental right—and the law of the land,” he tweeted.
“That's why I've supported reproductive health as a mayor & as a philanthropist. As president, I will appoint judges who would preserve Roe, not take it away.”
2020 contender and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the brief demonstrated that “[we] need to take back the Senate and pass federal laws protecting our reproductive rights.”
Democrats’ ‘violence against women’ bill would force taxpayers to fund abortion overseas
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 2, 2020 (C-Fam) — In late November, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives reintroduced the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA), a bill whose previous introductions led to heated debates over issues of abortion and gender. A few weeks later, a counterpart bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate.
Because of concerns about the abortion issue, the bill has been stalled for years in Congress. This despite broad support for its stated purpose: the prevention of violence against, and justice for, women and girls.
The House bill repeatedly refers to "reproductive health," often used as a euphemism for abortion. It twice refers to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) as an important partner to "reach affected women and girls." The U.S. under the Trump administration has defunded UNFPA, which partners with pro-abortion organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International (MSI). Such organizations would be ineligible for U.S. foreign aid funding under President Trump's Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy.
The House bill also calls for "gender analysis" to be integrated into national-level strategies carried out by U.S. federal agencies such as USAID and the Department of State. It defines "gender analysis" as "the examination of the differential impact of policies on different genders," leaving open the possibility of a non-binary view of gender. In contrast, the Senate version defines the term as referring to "gaps between men and women."
The Senate bill is led by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who has been a longtime advocate for the inclusion of abortion in U.S. global health programming. Recently, Senator Shaheen threatened the passage of the foreign operations appropriations legislation by introducing amendments promoting abortion and homosexuality, upending a previous agreement that there would be no "poison pill" language in the bill.
The inclusion of a "gender analysis" in the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act, passed last year, was controversial because it reinforced Obama administration policies that are still in effect. These gender policies are used by federal agencies and mandate the provision of "reproductive health" and contraception as well as LGBT-related programming.
The proposed sexual violence bill would codify the Office of Global Women's Issues (GIWI), created under the Obama administration, and make it the leading office in sexual violence programs. The women's office has channeled funding for sexual violence programs to non-governmental organizations overseas that perform abortion and lobby to remove legal protection for unborn children. It is unknown whether GIWI programs are subject to the expanded Mexico City policy.
Even if the Trump administration issues new gender policies that reverse the Obama-era requirements, the next Democratic administration would be able to change them back, or even make them more aggressively support abortion and gender ideology. The only way to prevent this would be to block passage of bills that contain a mandate for "gender analysis," such as IVAWA, or to include language within the text of the law that codifies the Trump administration's Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy.
Formerly known as the Mexico City policy, this standard would ban federal global health funding from going to foreign organizations that promote or provide abortion, such as IPPF and MSI.
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has endorsed IVAWA, pointing out that it "goes further" than previous versions by "recognizing the important role of reproductive health access in combatting gender-based violence" and supporting UNFPA.
1000’s of Tons of Radioactive Fukushima Water to be Dumped in Pacific as Independent Testing Banned
The Japanese government is refusing to allow independent testing of contaminated water found in the nuclear power plant at Fukushima, which has been leaking ever since a tsunami and earthquake devastatingly hit the facility in March 2011.
The decision not to allow independent testing was allegedly arrived to over “safety concerns” in relation to the storing and transportation of the radioactive water.
“Other organizations are not permitted to carry out tests of the water…If we are going to allow external organizations to test the treated water then we would need to go through very strict procedures and due process because that water is contaminated. If it is taken outside this facility, then there need to be strict regulations.” – Hideki Yagi, a spokesman for the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)
However, independent environmental groups including Greenpeace and Citizens’ Nuclear Information Centre (CNIC) assert that this is indeed a cover-up against the true level of contamination in the water used to cool three damaged reactors.
“There would need to be lots of checks because there is a lot of water, but right now it looks very much to the outside world that they are trying to cover something up – as they have a long history of doing.” – Hideyuki Ban, co-director of CNIC
Although the contaminated water is deemed too dangerous to test for potency, the government of Japan and TEPCO both regard it as not too dangerous to dump into the pacific ocean as they likely plan to do as soon as their storage tanks reach maximum capacity in the summer of 2020.
READ: FUKUSHIMA – THE UNTOUCHABLE ECO-APOCALYPSE NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT
The amount of contaminated water at Fukushima is astounding. On top of an undisclosed amount which we still don’t know the potency of, ground water continues to seep into the basement levels of the facility with an additional 120 tons accumulating every day, according to the London Telegraph.
The decision not to allow third-party testing of the contaminated water at Fukushima is not only causing the public to lose faith in the government’s ability to safely manage emergencies, but whether Japanese citizens can trust them to tell the truth about the dangers they face as a country.
“Tepco has lost trust across society in Japan as well as in the international community, including in South Korea, and providing samples for analysis would be in their best interests – unless they are covering something up…so providing samples that could verify their reports on content would go some way to demonstrating their commitment to transparency.” – Shaun Burnie, Senior Nuclear Specialist for Greenpeace
In 2016, the Japan government estimated the cost of the Fukushima disaster to be about 21.5 trillion yen ($188 billion), nearly doubled compared to their previous projection of 11 trillion yen in 2013.
In 2012, exactly one year after the disaster, 79.6% of polled Japanese citizens favored phasing out nuclear power altogether. This led to the then-prime minister Yoshihiko Noda announcing a plan to phase out Japanese nuclear power completely by 2040. However, current prime minister Shinzo Abe walked back that statement in 2016, announcing that Japan “cannot do without” nuclear power as anywhere from 3.1-4.7% of Japan’s electricity is supplied by nuclear. By 2030, the government that number to be between 20-22%.
Since Abe’s government took power in late 2012, they have given the green light to several nuclear power plants, including the Onagawa reactor which was also damaged by the earthquake on March 11, 2011.
They claim that the disposal of Fukushima’s radioactive water will have only a “small” impact on humans, but how do we know that’s true without independent testing? How do we know what impact the radiation will have on marine life, fish, and in turn, humans who eat fish caught near the dumping site?
The Japanese government and nuclear companies want you to believe that what they’re doing is completely safe, “but that has to be full of caveats because the way that information has been presented is confusing and not transparent so ordinary people do not understand and cannot make informed decisions,” says Azby Brown, lead researcher for Safecast Japan, a Tokyo-based group which monitors radiation.
Here's what Jordan Peterson thinks about transgender 'speech law'
WND Staff By WND Staff
Published January 2, 2020 at 7:39pm
Known for his unrelenting stand against a Canadian bill that would compel politically correct speech, psychology professor Jordan Peterson is featured in the film "No Safe Spaces," which will be re-released on 70 screens across America on Friday.
In the film, Peterson is asked about the bill, which would have added "gender identity and expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination, effectively compelling the use of "transgender pronouns."
The University of Toronto professor acknowledged there are limits on freedom of speech, such as not inciting violence, but he insisted the Canadian law is different.
"This is the law insisting that you say something. You use my language," he said.
"And my response was: 'There isn't a hope in hell that I will ever use your language.'"
The interviewer, comedian Adam Carolla, observed that "once you control the language, you control the outcome."
"That's why I wouldn't say those words. Because that's exactly right," Peterson said.
"If I allow you to define the territory in which we are going to engage, then you win."
In "No Safe Spaces," Carolla teams up with author and talk-radio host Dennis Prager to document the erosion of free-speech rights across America.
WND reported the film follows Prager and Carolla as they visit college campuses across the country and interview students and professors, comedians and commentators on the left and right. Some have been victims of censorship.
Carolla is host of the world's No. 1 podcast, and Prager is known for his radio show, columns and PragerU, which itself has been the target of censorship for its politically incorrect views.
The film also features dramatic and comedic recreations of life-shaping moments in the lives of Prager and Carolla, including Prager's visit to the Soviet Union.
The film project began in 2017 with an Indiegogo fundraising campaign.
"Entitled snowflakes on college campuses raging and screaming every time they encounter an idea they disagree with," the film's Indiegogo page said. "These stories might be somewhat amusing if they weren’t such a dangerous indication of what’s to come. Trigger warnings, micro-aggressions, the suppression of free speech, and other illogical ideas born on campuses are proliferating and spreading out into the real world.
"Today’s campus snowflake is tomorrow’s teacher, judge, or elected official," it said. "And if that doesn’t scare you, maybe you should reconsider. No matter where you live or what you do, if you don’t think they way they do, they will attempt to silence and punish you."
There are a multitude of false assumptions out there on what the collapse of a nation or “empire” looks like. Modern day Americans have never experienced this type of event, only peripheral crises and crashes. Thanks to Hollywood, many in the public are under the delusion that a collapse is an overnight affair. They think that such a thing is impossible in their lifetimes, and if it did happen, it would happen as it does in the movies – They would simply wake up one morning and find the world on fire. Historically speaking, this is not how it works. The collapse of an empire is a process, not an event.
This is not to say that there are not moments of shock and awe; there certainly are. As we witnessed during the Great Depression, or in 2008, the system can only be propped up artificially for so long before the bubble pops. In past instances of central bank intervention, the window for manipulation is around ten years between events, give or take a couple of years. For the average person, a decade might seem like a long time. For the banking elites behind the degradation of our society and economy, a decade is a blink of an eye.
In the meantime, danger signals abound as those analysts aware of the situation try to warn the populace of the underlying decay of the system and where it will inevitably lead. Economists like Ludwig Von Mises foresaw the collapse of the German Mark and predicted the Great Depression; almost no one listened until it was too late. Multiple alternative economists predicted the credit crisis and derivatives crash of 2008; and almost no one listened until it was too late. People refused to listen because their normalcy bias took control of their ability to reason and accept the facts in front of them.
There are a number factors that cause mass blindness to economic and social reality. First and foremost, establishment elites deliberately create the illusion of prosperity by rigging economic data to the upside. In almost every case of economic crisis or geopolitical disaster, the public is conditioned to believe they are in the midst of a financial “boom” or era of “peace”. They are encouraged to ignore fundamental warning signs in favor of foolish faith in the system. Those people that try to break the apathy and expose the truth are called “chicken little” and “doom monger”.
In the minds of the cheerful lemmings a “collapse” is something very obvious; they think they would know it when they saw it. It's like trying to teach a blind person about colors; it's not impossible, but it's very difficult to get all these Helen Kellers to understand that what they perceive is not the whole reality. There's a vast world hidden from them and they have no concept of how to observe it.
Crash events are like stages in the process of collapse; they create moments of clarity for the blind. However, they are also often engineered to benefit the establishment. There's a reason why the elites put so much energy into hiding the real data on the state of the economy, and it's not because they are trying to keep the system from faltering by using sheer public ignorance. Rather, a crash event is a tool, a means to an end. As Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. warned after the panic of 1920:
"Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created; the present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical problem..."
Central bankers and their cohorts manipulate economic data and promote the false notion of a boom before almost every major crash because they WANT to ambush the populace. They WANT to create panic, and then use it to their advantage as they rebuild and mutate the system into something unrecognizable only decades ago. Each consecutive crash contributes to the collapse of the whole, until eventually the society we once had is barely a distant memory.
This process can take decades, and the US has been subject to it for quite some time now. Once again in 2019 we are seeing the lie of an “economic boom” being perpetuated in the mainstream. The public was growing too aware of the danger and had to be subdued. More specifically, conservatives were growing too aware. The sad thing is that the boom propaganda is most prominent today among conservatives, who are desperately trying to ignore the fundamentals in an attempt to defend the Trump Administration.
The same people who were pointing out the economic bubble under Obama are now denying its existence under Trump. Trump himself argued that the markets were a dangerous economic fraud created by the Federal Reserve during his campaign, yet once he was in office he flip-flopped and started taking full credit for the bubble. What is mind boggling to me is that many people, even in the liberty movement, still choose to dismiss this behavior in favor of worshiping Trump as some kind of hero on a white horse.
This only reinforces my theory that the system is due for another major engineered crash event, and that the ongoing collapse of the US is soon to accelerate. Each case of economic calamity in modern history was preceded by peak delusional optimism and peak greed. When the people traditionally most vigilant against crisis suddenly capitulate and claim victory, this is when reality strikes hardest. This is when the establishment triggers yet another controlled demolition.
In order to determine how long an empire will last, one has to take into account the agenda of the elites that control its institutions. As long as they are in key positions of power within the system and as long as they can inject their own puppet politicians, they will have the ability to influence the collapse timeline of that system.
Can they prolong and stave off crisis? Yes, for a short while. However, once the machine of a crash has been set in motion the best they can do is slow down the Titanic; they cannot change its path towards the iceberg. And frankly, at this point why would they? I hear it argued often that the elites are going to “keep the plates spinning” on the economy and that they don't want to lose their “golden goose” in the US economy. This reveals an naivety among skeptics of the true agenda.
Firstly, the elites have a highly useful political puppet in the form of Donald Trump; he is useful in that he inspires sharp national division, and, he is a self proclaimed conservative champion and nationalist. If the elites did not trigger a crash under Trump, then this would give the public the impression that conservative ideals and national sovereignty works. This is the opposite of what they want. Why would globalists that want the erasure of nation states and the creation of a centralized socialist “Utopia” seek to make conservatives and nationalists look good? Well, they wouldn't.
The only concern of the banks is that they do not take the blame as their engineered collapse of the old world order hits the public with increasingly painful consequences. These consequences are already becoming visible.
The next major crash has begun in the form of plunging fundamentals, and far too many conservatives are placing their heads in the sand for the selfish sake of proving the political left wrong. Declines in US manufacturing, US freight, global exports and imports, mass closures in US retail, as well as all time highs in consumer debt, corporate debt and national debt are being shrugged off and rationalized as nothing more than “hiccups” in an otherwise booming economy. The Fed's repo market purchases, barely keeping up with demand from liquidity starved corporations are also not being taken seriously.
Conservatives and analysts are going to have to forget about supporting Trump, a Rothschild owned proxy, and start acknowledging reality once again. The only question now is, will the elites allow the crash to spread further into mainstreet and strike markets before or after the 2020 election?
As noted above, to predict the timing of a collapse in a nation or empire, one has to examine the agendas of the elites that dominate its institutions. We can gain some sense of timing from the public admissions of globalist organizations like the IMF and the UN. Each has announced the year 2030 as a target date for the finalization of globalization, a cashless society and sustainability goals. This means that the elites have around ten years to create a crisis and then “solve” that crisis with globalism.
Ten years is a narrow window, and if the elites intend for conservatives to take the blame for the next crash, they will have to initiate it soon. They may not have a choice anyway, as the chain of dominoes was already been set in motion by the Fed in 2018 with its liquidity tightening policies.
We can also gauge timing of a collapse to a point by understanding the common tactics the establishment uses to hide what they are doing. Generally, when a collapse is about to accelerate the elites use crisis events as cover to distract the public and produce scapegoats. In my article 'Globalists Only Need One More Major Event To Finish Sabotaging The Economy', I outlined three potential distractions that could be used in the near term, and if any of these events took place, then people should watch for the collapse to move faster. Two of these events now appear imminent: The first being a war with Iran, and the second being a 'No Deal' Brexit.
Finally, we can take into account the globalist need for a scapegoat, and it appears that conservatives and nationalists are their target for blame. This leaves less than one year for a crisis event if Trump is intended to leave the White House in 2020, or less than four years if he is intended to stay in for a second term. Keep in mind that A LOT can happen in a single year, and a second Trump term is certainly not guaranteed yet.
But why create a collapse in the first place? Crash events allow the establishment to consolidate control over hard assets as poverty forces the population to sell what they have to survive. This poverty also creates fear, which makes the public malleable and easier to control. Each new crisis opens doors to political and social changes, changes which end in less freedom and more centralization. Collapse is a succession of crashes leading to a complete erasure of the original society. It's not a Mad Max event, it's a hidden and insidious cancer that takes over the national body and warps it into a wretched form. The collapse is complete when the nation either breaks apart, or is so damaged for so long that no one can remember what it used to look like.
What we are witnessing today is the beginning of a new crash, and the final phases of a collapse of our way of life. The economic boom narrative among conservatives is a farce designed to trick us into complacency. The bubble that we warned about under the Obama Administration has been popped under the Trump Administration. Nothing has changed in the ten years since the 2008 crash except that the motivation for keeping the crash hidden is quickly disappearing.
Crashes are inevitable, but collapse is only possible when the public remains unprepared. Our civilization and its values are under attack, but they can only be destroyed if we stay apathetic to the threat and refuse to prepare for their defense. We must adopt a philosophy of decentralization. We need localized and self sufficient economies, as well as a return to localized production. Beyond that, we have to prepare for the eventuality of a fight. The fate of the US economy has already been sealed, but the people who are destroying it can still be stopped before they use the collapse to force society into subservience. We have to offer security, we have to offer alternatives to the "new world order" and we have to remove the globalist threat permanently.
Make no mistake, we are living in the midst of an epoch moment; the outcome of collapse depends on us and our reactions. This is not the task of the next generation, it is a task for our generation. We do not have another couple of decades to take the danger seriously. The plates are not spinning, they have already dropped.
RMN is an RA production.
The only pay your RMN moderators receive comes from ads.
Please consider putting RMN in your ad blocker's whitelist.
Serving Truth and Freedom
Worldwide since 1996
Politically Incorrect News
Stranger than Fiction