Brandon Smith's Latest Article and Prediction

[larsenb]

This guy has nailed it so far. You'd be wise to take the time to read this article and understand why Trump is not going to make America great again.

The article ends with a chilling prediction. I hope he's wrong.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-0 ... d-our-help" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com, . . . .

Not a bad article, and his hypothesis is not one that is ignored by many Trump supporters that I'm aware of. If extreme violence increases even to the point of 9/11-scale terrorist attacks, governmental response is always iffy. Look at the response to 9/11 itself: illegal wars that are still going on, and the trigger to overthrow 7 Muslim countries, etc.

But notice that at least in this article, Smith doesn't start labeling Trump as a murderer, and even says: "Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests".

I find a couple of Smith's assertions, at least, rather questionable. These include the idea that Soros' machinations are not designed to overthrow Trump. That may be the case, but the majority of Leftists' would be overjoyed at this prospect and seem to be working overtime to make it happen. Another one is where he says: "globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump". I haven't run across any of this cheering, unless he means they are quite openly trying to entrap him and even identify actual missteps by Trump in as many ways as they can in order to ramp up their anti-Trump rhetoric.

Anything to grow dissension fits their agenda. Playing off possible overreactions to this dissension is simply just one take off point available to them. The scenarios that may develop aren't confined to just this one possibility, IMHO.

Is Trump a conscious shill for the hypothesis Smith puts forward? I doubt it, but haven't entirely excluded the possibility. My sense is that Trump listens too much to advisors who harbor views antithetic to his campaign positions.

[BeNotDeceived]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3239 ... ke-bitcoin

The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin

My prediction is we will see a global digital crypto currency before we see the fall of Babylon. In fact, implementing such a device may actually be key to its fall.

Energy applied over time is called work and represents real value.

Bitcoin represents work, but unfortunately it represents the waste thereof. :ymdevil:

[iWriteStuff]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3239 ... ke-bitcoin

The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin

My prediction is we will see a global digital crypto currency before we see the fall of Babylon. In fact, implementing such a device may actually be key to its fall.

Energy applied over time is called work and represents real value.

Bitcoin represents work, but unfortunately it represents the waste thereof. :ymdevil:

I'm of the opinion that bitcoin mostly represents speculation at this point. But if you wanted to:

A) track your citizens
B) create an unlimited supply of fiat
C) have a world currency without borders
D) give banks more leverage over people that they can create out of nothing and
E) legalize a crypto currency for the payment of taxes...

Then you basically have a means of completely controlling the populace in a NWO context. It's coming; just a question of when.

[brianj]

My prediction is we will see a global digital crypto currency before we see the fall of Babylon. In fact, implementing such a device may actually be key to its fall.

Interesting thought. I have heard economists explain that since the US dollar is the world reserve currency we have exported most of our inflation to other countries. If another currency does become the world reserve, even an internationally sponsored cryptocurrency, it could be bad for the $USD.

[Silver]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3243 ... ic-decline

Geopolitical Tensions Are Designed To Distract The Public From Economic Decline
Thursday, 03 August 2017 02:06 Brandon Smith


Tracking geopolitical and fiscal developments over the past several years is a bit like watching a slow motion train wreck; you know exactly what the consequences of the events will be, you try to warn people as much as possible, but, ultimately, you cannot reverse the disaster. The disaster has for all intents and purposes already happened. What we are witnessing is the aftermath as a forgone conclusion.

This is why whenever someone asks me as an economic and political analyst "when the collapse is going to happen," I have to shake my head in bewilderment. The "collapse" is here now. It is done. It is a historical fact. It's just that not many people have the eyes to see it yet, primarily because they are hyper-focused on all the wrong things.

For many centuries now, elitists in power have understood the value of geopolitical distraction as a tool for controlling the masses. If you examine the underlying motivations behind the majority of wars between nations regardless of the era, you will in most cases discover that the power brokers on both sides tend to be rather friendly with each other. In fact, monarchies and oligarchies are historically notorious for fabricating diplomatic tensions and conflicts in order to force populations back under their control. That is to say, wars and other man-made conflicts give the citizenry something to react to, instead of hunting down the establishment cabal like they should.

One of the greatest illusions of human progress is the notion that most conflicts happen at random; that there are two sides and that those sides are fighting over ideological differences. In truth, most conflicts have nothing to do with ideological differences between governments and financial oligarchs. The REAL target of these conflicts is the people — or, to be more precise, the psychology of the people. Conflicts are often engineered in order to affect a particular change within the minds of the masses or to distract them from other dangers or solutions.

These scenarios are taken at face value by many because, unfortunately, most people have short attention spans. If an observer in 2007 was to be transported 10 years into the future, in 2017 they would find a world in dramatic and horrifying decline. The shock would be overwhelming. Ask an observer today what they think of the state of the world and they might not see much to be concerned about. The human mind becomes easily acclimated to crisis over time. We are resilient in this way, but also weak, because we forget the way things should be in order to deal with the way things are.

We only seem to take drastic actions to improve our situation after we have already hit rock bottom. The year of 2017 has so far been host to some extreme accelerations in crisis and collapse, and rock bottom is not looking too far away anymore.

Four trigger points around the globe concern me greatly, not because I think they will necessarily lead to a disaster any greater than the one we are already living in, but because they have the potential to effectively distract the public from more serious concerns. I am of course talking about the powder keg issues of Syria, North Korea, China vs. India, as well as Russia.

First, let's be clear, the ongoing destabilization of our economy should be the primary concern of every person on the planet, most particularly those in the West. We are living within the husk of a dead fiscal system, reanimated with the voodoo of central bank stimulus, but only for a limited time. Economic decline is the greatest threat to cultural longevity as well as to human freedom. Even nuclear war could not hold a candle to the terror of financial disaster, because at least in a nuclear war the slate is wiped clean for establishment elites as well as the normal population. At least, in the event of nuclear war, the elites face anarchy just like we do.

In an economic crisis, the establishment maintains a certain level of control and thus its arsenal of toys - Including biometric surveillance grids, standing military support in the form of martial law, as well as the delusion among the populace that things "might go back to the way they were before" given enough time and patience.

There will be no nuclear war. Perhaps a limited nuclear event, but not a global exchange. There will be no moment of apocalypse as it is commonly displayed in Hollywood films. However, we WILL witness lesser conflicts as a means to turn our gaze away from the economy itself.

To give a quick summary of the economy so far from an American perspective, I must first remind readers of the constant misinformation that is often used by government institutions and central banks in order to hide negative data. For example, recovery proponents will sometimes cite the supposed "decline" in the number of people registered for food stamp (SNAP) benefits from the 47 million peak in 2013 to 42 million recipients today. Yet, they rarely mention the fact that much of this decline is directly attributed to states now enforcing work requirements instead of simply handing out SNAP cards like Mardi Gras beads.

They also still, for some reason, like to cite the decline in the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent while continuing to ignore the fact that 95 million working age Americans are no longer counted as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They argue that this is an entirely acceptable condition, even though it is unprecedented, because "home surveys" from the BLS claim that most of these people "do not really want to work." These utterly ambiguous surveys leave open ended data to be interpreted essentially however the BLS wants to interpret it. Meaning, if they want to label millions of people as "disinterested" in employment, they can and will regardless of whether this is true or not.

Retail store closures have tripled so far this year, with 8,600 stores projected to close in total in 2017. This far surpasses the previous record of 6,163 stores in 2008 at the onset of the credit crisis.

This incredible implosion in brick and mortar business is often blamed on the rise of internet retail, or the "Amazon effect." This is yet another lie. Total e-commerce sales only accounted for 8.5 percent of total U.S. retail sales in the first quarter of 2017 according to the commerce department. This means that internet retail is nowhere near large enough to account for the considerable loss in standard retail business. Thus, we must look to the stagnation in consumer spending to explain the situation.

Auto sales continue their steady decline in 2017 as the short lived boom now faces death as ARM-style loans turn over and new buyers become scarce.

U.S. home ownership rates have collapsed since 2007. More households are renting than at any time in the past 50 years.

U.S. household debt has now hit levels not seen since 2008, just before the credit crisis.

Those looking for government spending to save the day should probably look elsewhere. Nearly 75 percent of every tax dollar goes towards non-productive spending on the part of government.

I could go on and on — it is simply undeniable that nearly every sector of the U.S. economy is in steady decline compared to pre-2008 levels. This instability in the fundamentals will eventually weigh down and crash stock markets, bond markets, currency markets, etc. Such markets are the last vestige of the U.S. economy still giving the appearance of health.

So, there will come a time, probably sooner rather than later, when the piper will have to be paid and someone will have to take the blame for our fiscal non-recovery. The international banks and central banks are certainly not going to volunteer for this even though they are the real perpetrators behind our incessant financial rot. But how do they avoid accepting responsibility?

First, by setting the stage for another scapegoat. As I warned for months before the 2016 election, Donald Trump is the perfect target for a redirection of blame for a market crash. He has even been avidly attempting to take credit for the current market bubble, making it easier for the banks to lay blame in his lap when the entire edifice crumbles.

Second, by warping public focus away from the economic collapse altogether and presenting them with a seemingly more dire threat.

In Syria, this has developed into potential conflict with the Syrian government, Iran and Russia. The establishment could at any moment initiate an attempt at regime change. Not necessarily with the intent to actually unseat Bashar al-Assad, but with the intent to create as much chaos as is necessary to terrify the unwitting citizenry. While Donald Trump has been recently credited with "ending the regime change program" in Syria by ending the CIA training and funding pipeline to "moderate rebels", this by no means equals an end to the plan to unseat Assad. ISIS has moved west into Europe, and now direct action against Assad by western governments is more probable. The Turkish government recently leaked the locations of multiple US bases within Syria, indicating that troops will remain on the ground and that the fractured country will continue on the same path of instability.

The next and most likely scenario for distraction is North Korea. With North Korea's latest ICBM missile test, the perceived threat to the U.S. is now complete. The idea of North Korea striking the heart of America with a nuclear weapon is enough for many people to rationalize U.S. strike operations. That said, an invasion on the part of the U.S. makes little sense. Any strike by North Korea would be met with immediate nuclear annihilation; meaning a ground invasion to "prevent" an attack is unnecessary and might actually provoke a nuclear response rather than defuse one. Of course, it is likely that the goal in North Korea is not to prevent a nuclear event, but to once again catalyze chaos and confusion while the global economy and more importantly the U.S. economy sinks further into oblivion.

The US government has just issued a travel ban to North Korea starting September 1st. They have asked all Americans already visiting the country to leave immediately.

Next, Russian tensions are reaching a new level, as the U.S. Senate has passed new sanctions based on nothing but fabricated hearsay, and Donald Trump proves me right once again with his signature on the same sanctions, calling the legislation "flawed" while at the same time displaying overt cooperation with the establishment agenda. The Russian response has so far been to expel hundreds of U.S. diplomats from their country, and warn that the sanctions constitute the beginning of a "trade war".

My readers know well that according to the evidence I view the East/West conflict to be farcical and theatrical, but this does not mean there will not be real-world consequences to the "little people" caught in the engineered crossfire. I believe this will culminate not in a shooting war, but in an economic war. While the international financiers constructed our bubble economy and will benefit from its failure, it will be eastern nations (and Trump) that receive much of the blame for the destruction of these bubbles.

Finally, an uncomfortable level of discord has been sparked the past month between India and China, both nuclear powers, over a border dispute in a remote valley connecting India to its ally, Bhutan. My feeling is that this is leading to diplomatic breakdown, but not necessarily an open war. Unfortunately, the trigger point stands ready to be exploited by globalists any time they need greater distraction. And, to be sure, a war between two of the world's largest economies would wreak absolute havoc and provide an excellent diversion for a fiscal crash already set in motion by international banks.

I do not see the timing of heightened geopolitical tensions in 2017 as coincidental. It appears to me that these events are perfectly organized with maximum distraction in mind as we hit the top of perhaps the most massive stock and bond bubbles in modern history. The effectiveness of the smoke and mirrors will depend on the ability of liberty proponents to keep our analytical teeth sunk into the jugular of the establishment elite, as well as our ability to remind the public that these conspirators are the true criminals behind our national and international pain. The more extreme the geopolitical disaster, the more frightened people will become and the harder it will be for us to do our job. Knowing the level of difficulty involved in preventing the terror and madness of the mob, it is not a struggle I look forward to in the slightest.

[Silver]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3254 ... -to-happen

Korean War Part II: Why It's Probably Going To Happen
Wednesday, 16 August 2017 01:57 Brandon Smith

Though a lot of people in my line of work (alternative economic and geopolitical analysis) tend to be accused of "doom mongering," I have to say personally I am not a big believer in "doom." At least, not in the way that the accusation insinuates. I don't believe in apocalypse, Armageddon or the end of the world, nor do I even believe, according to the evidence, that a global nuclear conflict is upon us. In fact, it annoys me that so many people seem desperate to imagine those conclusions whenever a crisis event takes shape.

I think the concept of "apocalypse" is rather lazy — unless we are talking about a fantastical movie scenario, like a meteor the size of Kentucky or Michelle Obama's Adam's apple hurtling towards the Earth. Human civilization is more likely to change in the face of crisis rather than end completely.

I do believe in massive sea changes in societies and political dynamics. I believe in the fall of nations and empires. I believe in this because I have seen it perpetually through history. What I see constant evidence of is that many of these sea changes are engineered by establishment elitists in government and finance. What I see is evidence of organized psychopathy and an agenda for total centralization of power. When I stumble upon the potential for economic disaster or war, I always ask myself "what is the narrative being sold to the public, what truth is it distracting us from and who REALLY benefits from the calamity."

The saying "all wars are banker wars" is not an unfair generalization — it is a safe bet.

First, let's clear up some misconceptions about public attitudes towards the North Korean situation. According to "polls" (I'll remind readers my ample distrust of polls), a majority of Americans now actually support U.S. troop deployment to North Korea, but only on the condition that North Korea attacks first.

I want you to remember that exception — North Korea must attack first. It will be important for later in this analysis.

Despite a wide assumption that the mainstream media is beating the war drums on this issue, I find it is in most cases doing the opposite. The mainstream media has instead been going out of its way to downplay any chance that the current inflamed rhetoric on both sides of the Pacific is anything other than bluster that will end with a whimper rather than bomb blasts. This is one of the reasons why I think war is imminent; the media is a notorious contrarian indicator. Whatever they predict is usually the opposite of what comes true (just look at Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, for starters). Another generalization that is a sure bet is that the mainstream media usually lies, or at the very least, they are mostly wrong.

That said, if we are to believe the latest polls, unfortunately, one thing is clear: The American people, on both sides of the political spectrum, are becoming more galvanized around supporting a potential conflict with North Korea. For the establishment, war is a winning sell, at least for now.

Of course, I am aware that we have heard all this before. Back in 2013 tensions were relatively high with North Korea just like they are today. North Korea threatened a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. back then, too, and in the end it was all hot air. However, besides wider public support than ever before in terms of troop deployment to North Korea, something else is very different from 2013. Primarily, China's stance on the issue of regime change.

In the past, China has been consistent in supporting UN sanctions against North Korea's nuclear program while remaining immovable on war and regime change in the region. In 2013, it was clear that China was hostile to the notion of a U.S. invasion.

In 2017, though, something has changed. China's deep ties to the global banking establishment, their open statements on their affection for the IMF, and their recent induction as the flagship nation for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights system make it clear that they are working for the globalist agenda, not against it. This is not necessarily a new thing behind the curtain; China has done the bidding of globalist institutions for decades. Today though, the relationship is displayed far more publicly.

In 2015, it was China, not the U.S., that sounded the alarm over North Korea's nuclear program, indicating that Pyongyang might have technology well beyond American estimates. It was this warning that triggered the slow buildup to today's fear over a fully capable intercontinental ballistic missile package in the hands of North Korea. It seems obvious to me that China plays the role of North Korea's friend as long as it serves the interests of the globalist agenda, and then China turns on North Korea when the narrative calls for a shift in the script. It is China that opens and closes the door to war with North Korea; a China that is very cooperative with the IMF and the push towards total globalization.

In 2013, China presented the narrative of stalwart opposition to U.S. invasion. In 2017, China has left the door wide open.

Both alternative and mainstream media outlets latched onto recent statements made by Beijing proclaiming that China "would not allow regime change in North Korea." What many of them forgot to mention or buried in their own articles, though, was that this was NOT China's entire statement. China also asserted that they would REMAIN NEUTRAL if North Korea attacked first. I cannot find any previous instance in the past when China has made such a statement; a statement that amounts to a note of permission.

Both the American public and the Chinese government have given support for regime change in North Korea given the stipulation that there is an attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests and allies. So, I ask you, what is most likely to happen here?

Much of the world and most importantly the U.S. is on the verge of a new phase of severe economic decline according to all fundamental data trends. The U.S. is set to enter into yet another debate on the debt ceiling issue with many on the conservative side demanding that Trump and Republicans not roll over this time. And, as I discussed in my article 'Geopolitical Tensions Are Designed To Distract The Public From Economic Decline', a North Korean conflict stands as the best possible distraction.

How does the establishment rationalize a contested debt ceiling increase while also diverting blame away from themselves on the continued decline in U.S. and global fiscal data? War! Not necessarily a "world war" as so many are quick to imagine, but a regional war; a quagmire war that will put the final nail in the U.S. debt coffin and act as the perfect scapegoat for the inevitable implosion of the current stock market bubble. The international banks have much to gain and little to lose in a war scenario with North Korea.

I predict that there will be an attack blamed on North Korea. Either North Korea will be prodded into a violent reaction, or, a false flag event will be engineered and tied to Pyongyang. Remember, for the first time ever, China has essentially backed off of its opposition to invasion of North Korea as long as North Korea "attacks preemptively." Why? Why didn't they make this exception back in 2013? Because now the international banks want a distraction and China is giving them the opening they require.

Will this war culminate in global nuclear conflagration? No. The establishment has spent decades and untold trillions building it's biometric control grids and staging the new global monetary framework under the SDR system. They are not going to vaporize all of this in an instant through a nuclear exchange. What they will do, though, is launch regional wars and also economic wars. Those people expecting apocalypse in the Hollywood sense are going to find something different, but in my opinion much worse — a steady but slower decline into economic ruin and global centralization.

Eventually, China and the U.S. will enter hostilities, but these hostilities will lean more towards the financial than the kinetic. The establishment cabal works in stages, not in absolute events. Another Korean war would be a disaster for America, just not in the way many people think.

Will there be a nuclear event? Yes. If war takes place in North Korea then it is likely they will use a nuclear device somewhere in retaliation. We may even see a nuclear event as a false flag catalyst for starting the war in the first place. This will not be a global threat, but a mushroom cloud over any American city or outpost is enough to scare the hell out of most people. It is all that will be needed.

Does this mean "doom" for the American people? It depends on how we react. Will we continue to hold the banking establishment responsible for all of their sabotage previous to a high profile war in the pacific? Or, will we get caught up in the tides of war fever? Will we question the source of future attacks on the U.S., or will we immediately point fingers at whoever the media or government tells us is the enemy? Our response really is the greatest determining factor in whether or not the American ideal of liberty stands or falls. This time, I do not see bluster, but a dark fog very common in the moments preceding conflict. This time, I believe we are indeed facing war, but war is always a means to an end. War is an establishment tool for social engineering on a massive scale.

[Silver]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3259 ... servatives

Globalist Strategy: Use Crazy Leftists And Provocateurs To Enrage/Demonize Conservatives
Wednesday, 23 August 2017 03:30 Brandon Smith


The false left/right paradigm is an often misunderstood concept. Many people who are aware of it sometimes wrongly assume that it asserts the claim that there is "no left or right political spectrum;" that it is all a farce. This is incorrect. In regular society there is indeed a political spectrum among the general populace from socialism/communism/big government (left) to conservatism/free markets/individualism/small government (right). Each citizen sits somewhere on the scale between these two dynamics. The left/right spectrum is in fact real for the average person.

We do not find a " false" paradigm until we examine the beliefs and behaviors of the elitist and political classes. For many banking oligarchs and high level politicians, there is no loyalty to a particular political party or an identifiable "left" or "right" ideology. Many of these people are happy to exploit both sides of the spectrum, if they can, to achieve the goals of globalism; a separate ideology that doesn't really serve the interests of groups on the left or the right. That is to say, globalists pretend as if they care about one side or the other on occasion, but in truth they could not care less about the success of either. They only care about the success of their own exclusive elitist club.

This reality also tends to apply to national loyalty as well. Globalists do not carry any ideological love for any particular nation or culture. They are more than happy to sacrifice and sabotage a country if the action will gain them greater power or centralization in return. A globalist is only "Democrat" or "Republican," or American or Russian or Chinese or European, etc., insofar as the label gets them something that they want.

The reason globalists and the people that work for them adopt certain labels is because through this they can act as gatekeepers and better manipulate the masses. The hot button issue of the week provides us with a case in point...

The organizer of the "Unite The Right" group during the Charlottesville circus, which ended in one death and numerous injured, happened to be an ideological playmate of the extreme left only a year ago. Jason Kessler seemed to come out of nowhere as a leading figure in the white identity or "white nationalist" movement in 2017, but in 2016, he was an avid supporter of Barack Obama, and before that, an active champion of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I suppose anyone can change their ideological worldview over time, but I'm certainly not stupid enough to believe that Jason Kessler went from hardcore leftist to white nationalist in less than a year. Though it cannot be proven conclusively that Kessler is a provocateur, he certainly idolized the position. Kessler is quoted in his own blog on December 12, 2015, (now shut down but archived) as stating:

"I can't think of any occupation I admire more than the professional provocateur, who has the courage and self-determination to court controversy despite all the slings and arrows of the world."

This is not the first time white nationalists have been exploited by agent provocateurs to make the "political right" in general look bad. And, it is certainly not the first time white nationalists have been discovered to be working directly for the federal government. Klu Klux Klan leader Bill Wilkinson openly admitted to being a FBI informant and cooperator in 1981. Hal Turner, a white supremacist radio personality notorious for calling for the deaths of judges and lawmakers, turned out to be a provocateur paid by the FBI to drum up extremism. He was exposed in 2009 after his arrest led to his admission that almost everything he did was "at the behest of the Federal Bureau of Investigations..."

Why would the government seek to instigate white nationalist groups into violence? Well, you have to examine the larger narrative here.

Anti-conservative propaganda has been overwhelmingly one-track over the past several years. If you are well educated on the activities of deceit machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center, you understand that the thrust of all of their operations has been to tie white nationalism directly to conservative organizations even if there is no connection. I call this "guilt by false association." Keep in mind that the SPLC cooperates closely with government agencies like the DHS and their "Working Group To Counter Violent Extremism" to create profiling techniques to identify "right wing extremists." Meaning, their skewed propaganda is often what the media and government agencies use as a reference when writing articles or implementing policy.

The SPLC is inseparable from the mainstream media and government agendas dealing with conservatives.

In order to justify the madness and violence of the left in recent months, it is more important than ever for the establishment to maintain the lie that conservatives are also all violent racists and "fascists" that need to be destroyed. Propaganda alone is rarely enough to make such notions stick in the public consciousness. Sometimes, provocateurs are needed to "stir the pot."

However, this is only half the equation of the American civil war being engineered before our eyes.

In my article 'The Social Justice Cult Should Blame Itself For The Rise Of Trump' published in August of 2016, I warned that Trump would indeed win the presidential election and that this would actually serve the interests of establishment elites. In the article, I outline the classic division that globalists have used for decades to divide and conquer societies as well as conjure instability and even geopolitical conflicts — namely the communist versus fascist division.

The political left in the U.S. has gone "full retard" as they say, and it is my belief that this is by design. George Soros, an avid globalist and Nazi-collaborator that now pretends to be a "Democrat" (remember, in reality these people have no loyalty to either side), is a prominent figure behind the funding and strategy initiatives of far-left groups like Black Lives Matter and others related to Antifa activities.

The current behavior of SJW groups like Antifa is similar in numerous ways to the actions of Maoists in China during the Cultural Revolution. Maoists sought to erase all vestiges of China's "imperialist history" in a wave of violence that resulted in the destruction of priceless pieces of Chinese historical significance, and the prosecution of political opponents. This unchecked fervor eventually culminated in mass killings of anyone found to be a heretic of the new social justice religion. The only group to truly benefit from the rabid outburst was Mao and the elites of China's political establishment.

The left's uncomfortably similar war against confederate statues in America is not about slavery, and it's certainly not about a respect for life (if that were the case, they would have admonished the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders supporter as much as they wailed about the killing of Heather Heyer by a white nationalist). Where was all the outrage from the left over Scalise? And, where was the outrage over Confederate statues during Barack Obama's presidency? Why isn't the left blaming him for the continued existence of these "racist" landmarks?

Clearly, none of these statues glorify slavery in any way, they merely represent a piece of America's past which was far more complex than poorly educated SJW lunatics are able to comprehend. Of course, they don't care about real history, they only care that the issue of confederate statues is a means by which they can implement deconstruction of American cultural heritage, which is predominantly conservative in ideals.

What the left wants is to START with confederate statues because this is easiest for them to rationalize to the public, then move on to the founding fathers, then to the Constitution and round out their assault with the erasure of conservative thought altogether.

What globalists like George Soros want is to encourage leftists to pursue this goal, but not necessarily with the expectation that they will succeed. In fact, the globalists are about to throw the leftists to the wolves.

My readers are well aware of my position on the Trump presidency. I said it before his election and I continue to hold to my prediction to this day; Trump is either a patsy and a scapegoat for the inevitable economic and social crisis that has been brewing within America for years, or, he is a pied piper and willing participant in the scheme. Either way, conservatives are being lashed to the hull of Trump's Titanic, and when it sinks, we are all supposed to go down with it.

The social justice cultism of leftists, growing ever more heinous and illogical, is MEANT to push conservatives not just into the arms of the Trump White House, but it is also meant to push us towards a more totalitarian mindset. The more aggressive the left becomes, the more inclined the right will be to use government as a weapon to pulverize them with an iron fist. This is exactly what globalists want, for once conservatives abandon our Constitutional principles in the name of defeating the left we will have become the monster we have always sought to defend against. We will have lost the long game, and the globalists will have us exactly where they want us.

Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. Both ideologies were originally developed and funded by international banks and conglomerates in the early 20th century. For undeniable evidence of this I recommend reading works of Antony Sutton, including Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution, as well as Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler.

Communism is a totalitarian/collectivist model based on the fraudulent premise that the strongest and most successful in a society must be diminished or erased in order to elevate the weak and unsuccessful. All based on the assumption that the strong must have risen to their position through oppression and exploitation. Through this erasure they hope to create "equality."

Fascism is a totalitarian/collectivist model based on the fraudulent premise that the weak and unsuccessful in a society must be diminished or erased because they are a parasitic drain on the strong.

Both rely heavily on the power of government, the blind servitude of the majority and the use of terror to achieve their goals.

Neither of these systems is compatible with conservative philosophy and both of them act as a catalyst for greater centralization and less freedom, which the globalists benefit greatly from. In fact, if you believe in the force of big government and the collectivist mindset then you CANNOT call yourself a conservative. The two worldviews are mutually exclusive.

Conservatives can, though, be corrupted, just like anyone else. In the case of the present day, conservatives are being stabbed with a thousand needles by the left, luring us into a mindset of vengeance and rage. We are also being falsely associated with white nationalist movements (many of them operated by agent provocateurs) that do often promote fascism as if it is some kind of "misunderstood" elixir of stability and utopia. I think it is clear that regardless of who wins — fascists or communists, conservatives are the primary target.

It is my view that the left is cannon fodder in this agenda. They are being wielded like a blunt instrument; a battering ram composed of useful idiots, a buzzing of flies and mosquitoes. Conservatives will be encouraged to act against constitutional values in order to stop this threat in the most brutal way. The time is coming when we will have to make a choice – stand by our values and fight the left the hard way, or abandon our values and serve the globalists by adopting their methods of government totalitarianism. It is my hope that enough of us will stand by the constitution and conscience in this schizophrenic era and disrupt the tides of madness before they erode our nation completely.

[Silver]

http://alt-market.com/articles/3271-glo ... eir-agenda

Globalists Will Throw Antifa To The Wolves To Further Their Agenda
Thursday, 07 September 2017 01:42 Brandon Smith

In numerous interviews and articles, including my essay 'Globalist Strategy: Use Crazy Leftists And Provocateurs To Enrage/Demonize Conservatives', I have warned leftists that they are being exploited by globalists as a means to drive conservatives towards greater centralization under Trump and the federal government and that if they continue on the path they have embraced, a totalitarian response may be imminent.

I have also made it clear to conservatives that cultural Marxist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter as they exist today are paper tigers; they are not physically or strategically capable of backing up the viciousness of their ideologies. Meaning, a totalitarian response is not warranted (a totalitarian response is NEVER warranted) and would in fact only help the globalists in their long term efforts to destroy our Constitutional principles.

To summarize, the goal of the establishment is to use extreme leftist groups like a short stick to prod the real tiger — conservative movements. The goal, I believe, is to enrage liberty champions to the point that they are willing to "bend the rules" and rationalize the abandonment of their morals in order to defeat what they think is a great evil. Like all morally relativistic shifts in society, there is always the claim that it is for "the greater good of the greater number", or, "the other side is much worse, therefore we are justified in our tyranny...".

In the end, groups like Antifa will be thrown to the wolves, because the globalists do not intend for them to "win" any engagement with conservatives. This was never the plan.

If you want to measure the speed at which our nation is destabilizing under this agenda, it is helpful to watch how quickly government institutions and politicians abandon or turn on the leftists. The faster they do so, the more likely it is that a major crisis event is in the making.

In the past week alone, the entire narrative surrounding the mainstream relationship to Antifa has turned sour. For example:

According to documents obtained by Politico, the FBI and DHS have now officially classified Antifa as a terrorist group. The DHS has stated that these documents were not meant to be made public.

The mainstream media, the largest backers of cultural Marxist groups, must have received a memo, because their tune has quickly morphed to the negative when dealing with Antifa. The Washington Post chastised them for attacking "peaceful right-wing demonstrators" (did you EVER think you would see the words "peaceful right-wing protestors" in an establishment rag like The Washington Post?).

The Los Angeles Times also admonished far-left violence, while The Atlantic warned of the "rise of the violent left."

Even crazed leftist zealot Nancy Pelosi has publicly turned against Antifa, stating that violent members should be "locked up."

This is a rather fascinating 180-degree turn from a couple of weeks ago when all eyes were on "white nationalist" groups as the primary threat to America. But does this mean that the establishment did some soul searching and realized who the real purveyors of violence and conflict are? No, it does not.

As I have been predicting since before the 2016 elections, the left's usefulness has a shelf life. If the establishment was interested in following through with the concept that Trump must be "unseated," then they would retain full public support behind groups like Antifa. Instead, the establishment is playing the game of the hidden hand.

Right now,it would seem that Antifa groups are to take on the role of the underdog — the battered but still active insurgency against an "increasingly fascist regime." A few events need to take place in order for this narrative to hold any weight in the national consciousness, however. For example, while globalists may back away from support of extreme leftists in public, they will most likely continue with private support and funding as men like George Soros have always done. Leftists will also have to be inspired to even greater violence than they have already committed.

As I discussed in my article 'Militant Leftists Are More An Annoyance Than A Real Threat To Liberty', published in May, regular Antifa protest organizations are not a true threat. That said, eventually there will be Antifa groups that are directly trained by government agencies to commit terrorist acts, much like The Weather Underground in the U.S. in the 1970s, or the controlled and well armed terror groups in Europe during Operation Gladio from the 1950s to the 1990s. In the end, all leftists will be associated with the actions of these false-flag groups.

In the meantime, the Trump administration is playing its part by preparing the ground for a future martial law-style crackdown. Trump's latest executive measure? Bringing back Department of Defense program 1033, which funnels considerable amounts of surplus military hardware to police departments across America.

What happens next? Well, in my view the next most logical step for the globalists would be to initiate an attack of some kind on a civilian or government target and ensure that leftists are involved or blamed. With the fanaticism of the left today almost on par with the fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalists, I imagine it will not be very hard to find some useful idiots to carry out such an action.

Most likely attack scenarios in my view? Leftist terror groups supported covertly by governments have often gravitated towards bombings as their preferred method. On a larger scale, I would not rule out assassinations of politicians or even a FAILED assassination attempt on Donald Trump. These would be perfect triggers for a wider federal crackdown on leftists, fueling even greater animosity for Trump by progressives and providing a rationale for martial law for conservatives.

For some people uneducated on the finer points of false flag terrorism, this will sound like "conspiracy theory." Some of it is indeed speculation on my part, but all of it is based on exposed programs of past high profile operations by various establishment entities to engineer civil unrest or to manipulate one part of a society to support more centralization and less freedom.

Again, as I have said all along, the real target has always been conservatives. Conservative principles are the primary threat to globalism. In order to eliminate these principles, it is not enough to attempt to eliminate the people that hold them dear. This will only inspire the spread of such ideals; the globalists would achieve the opposite effect they desire. Therefore, they need to manipulate conservatives into voluntarily abandoning those principles of constitutional liberty and limited government. Conservatives must be made into tyrants. Only then will conservative principles truly die out.

Leftist groups like Antifa are meant as a catalyst for this transition, much like their communist forebears were a catalyst for the rise of fascism in Italy in the early 1920's. They will not be the only mechanism, but they will be an important mechanism. As we witness the mainstream turning on the extreme left, the temptation will be to assume victory — that we have won and that the fighting will soon be over. Nothing could be further from reality. Antifa is not going away, it is merely changing into something worse; something more useful to globalists like Soros. If we find ourselves distracted from Constitutionalism and our pursuit of the globalists by this new and more violent incarnation, it will be conservatives, not leftists, that will end up becoming the pinnacle threat to our own ideals.

[Silver]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3293 ... g-incident

A Tactical Analysis Of The Las Vegas Mass Shooting Incident
Wednesday, 11 October 2017 03:20 Brandon Smith


I set aside some time for more details of the Vegas shooting to emerge before writing this article. A few important data points have been released, but I have to say that this remains one of the most confusing terror incidents in decades.

The tactical and strategic thought applied in this attack denotes a sophisticated and experienced shooter, yet, we are told by Stephen Paddock's family and girlfriend that there was no indication that he had such knowledge or experience. There were some advanced tactical decisions involved in every aspect of the staging of the event, yet, there were also a few glaring mistakes that do not fit. Beyond this, there is evidence that Paddock (the alleged shooter) did not act alone, yet, the official mainstream narrative continues to tell us that he was a lone wolf.

Now, every terror event these days produces an endless supply of alternative theories, some practical and some ridiculous. I will be keeping my theories to a minimum here, because I don't think they serve much purpose in this instance beyond comfort for those that desperately want explanations. What I will be doing is presenting some questions and pointing out inconsistencies. My goal is merely to show that there is evidence which indicates far more complexity to the Vegas shooting than the mainstream media and federal officials are willing to discuss.

First, lets look at how the attack was staged versus what we are told about the background of Stephen Paddock.

Mass Shooter Psychological Profile

Psychological disposition is the root of tactical behavior. It is important to note that mass shootings are an extremely rare occurrence despite the propaganda often poured onto the pages of the mainstream media. Psychological profiling of the people behind these crimes is difficult because the number of candidates is very small. There are, however, some common themes.

For example — many mass shooters are motivated by revenge or envy. Shooters often exhibit signs of sociopathy, a self-centered nature and a lack of compassion along with past instances of abuse and violence towards other people and animals. There is also usually a previous history of mental illness. In most cases there is a "triggering event" which leads to a psychological break and a reaction to violence.

According to the personal accounts from the people that knew Paddock, including his girlfriend, none of these attributes seems to fit. Marilou Danley described him as a "kind and caring man," stating that he had never taken any action which would have led her to believe he was capable of such violence. The only factor that stands as evidence of a potential psychological break is the fact that Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug diazepam months prior, which has been known to cause aggression when taken in larger doses.

Did Paddock take this drug because of unrelated anxiety and did it trigger his shooting spree? Or, was his anxiety caused by the fact that he was already planning a shooting spree and the drug was meant to "take the edge off" so he could more easily follow through with the attack?

Paddock was prescribed the drug once in 2016 and on June 21st of this year. I have seen no evidence that he was using the medication in the days before the attack. The meticulous planning that went into this attack, as well as possible evidence that Paddock was renting rooms adjacent to major musical events for some time, shows that this was not initiated by a psychological break. Rather, there was a considerable level of conscious critical thought and foresight.

There is also no available evidence of domestic instability or financial troubles. Paddock was a multi-millionaire with a successful real estate investment portfolio. He was a former postal worker and tax auditor, as well as an employee for defense contractor Lockheed Martin (I have not seen any statements by Lockheed on what exactly he did for them). It should be noted that Paddock, at age 64, was one of the oldest mass shooters in recent history.

Paddock's father, a bank robber on the FBI's Most Wanted list, was not present for the most of the early lives of the children according to his brother, Eric Paddock, which undermines the notion of poor environmental influences.

Eric Paddock claims Stephen also had no strong ideological or religious leanings and simply "didn't care" about such matters. Meaning, no apparent ties to extremist views. He had no social media profiles and police claim they have found nothing in his home computers or phones to suggest a philosophical or political motive. So far I have not seen a single concrete and verified piece of evidence proving Paddock believed in anything other than making money, gambling and traveling the world for fun.

I personally find this extremely hard to believe. Stephen Paddock, for all intents and purposes, was positively the perfect "Gray Man," a ghost that blended completely into the background, so much so that his own family and girlfriend had no idea that he was amassing the weapons and training needed to pull off the Vegas attack.

The Tactical Know-How Of A Nobody

This is the area which brings up the most questions for me in terms of the Vegas incident. As an avid tactical shooter and long distance shooter, I immediately recognized some strange factors. For instance, the choice of his perch, two adjacent rooms on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, was rather effective for a number of reasons.

If you have the chance to study counter-sniping methodologies or talk with veterans involved in counter-sniping in urban areas, you will learn that the most successful snipers tend to choose mid-ground perches to take shots from. Meaning, they never choose the highest points nor the lowest points, and never shoot from the closest points or the furthest points. Well trained snipers can and do sometimes shoot from 1,000 yards or more, but they prefer to shoot from the "sweet spot" around 300-400 yards away at an elevated point from an expedient hide in the middle of a building or structure.

They do this because when people (including trained combat soldiers) are shot at, their eyes naturally tend to scan for the highest points in the background and the closest points in the foreground first. Choosing mid-ground positions makes snipers more difficult to pick out quickly and also harder for the average person to shoot back at.

I would note that average, untrained mass shooters are more likely to enter a crowd and start shooting at point blank range in order to ensure hits on targets. Paddock chose the position of a trained shooter, which you can see a photo of in this article by The New Yorker. It was NOT the best possible position, but a very good one.

Paddock's choice to fire from the position of a large occupied hotel gave a layer of cover to his attack; anyone attempting to suppress him with their own fire would risk hitting innocent people within the building. Only a person with an understanding of counter-sniping and a scoped rifle would have the ability to stop the attack from outside. Nevada is a very concealed carry friendly state and attacking a crowd at close range on the ground would be a high risk scenario. Firing from the Mandalay was the shooter's most likely chance of a high body count without meeting opposition, as long as he had the proper training.

The first room Paddock used in the Mandalay is in the corner of the 32nd floor with a view of the concert area and the north. It has a diagonal range of around 400 yards and a linear range of around 240 yards. When firing from an elevated position snipers range targets and bullet drop according to the shorter linear range or "true ballistic distance" (base of the ground to the target) rather than the direct range from their perch to the target. This is because gravity only affects the bullet over the true ballistic distance and elevation in a scope must be adjusted to that distance. It is not as easy as it seems to hit targets from an elevated position, even with an "automatic" weapon.

It has been recently stated by Las Vegas police that the "note" found near Paddock's body was scribbled with calculations for bullet drop from his position. These calculations can be done with newer laser rangefinders, but Stephen apparently chose to do them on paper. Las Vegas Detective Casey Clarkson was on the grounds of the concert during the attack, and recounted "I'm like, how is he so accurate" (in reference to Paddock) in an interview with 60 Minutes. Yet another piece of evidence showing that Paddock (or someone else) had extensive shooter training.

The two adjacent rooms at the Mandalay offered extensive coverage of possible approaches for first responders. The first room gave the shooter good coverage of the concert and the north approach of Las Vegas Blvd. The second room gave the shooter a very wide angle of coverage to the south approach to the Mandalay as well as the main entrance of the hotel. More tactical know-how on display.

Finally, Paddock allegedly placed small surveillance cameras in the hall approaching his room. A valuable tool which a shooter could use to surprise law enforcement, maintaining a longer period of shooter effectiveness as well as possibly allowing for an escape. Las Vegas police are quoted as stating that it appeared as though Paddock had planned to evade capture. This fits in line with the rest of his tactical staging. His suicide does not.

Things That Don't Add Up

Again, I am not going to enter into much discussion on theory, here. I am only going to cite some instances of evidence and narrative that, for me, do not make sense. Let's begin...

The motive: No apparent motive. Paddock led a life of near luxury, had a happy relationship with his girlfriend and gave no indication to anyone of any instability or ideological affiliation. He had no criminal record. He was also well beyond the average age range of people commonly involved in such crimes. He does not fit any of the characteristics of mass shooters. Period.

The arsenal: Paddock put a substantial amount of thought and planning into the position of his perch as well as a potential escape. He had the knowledge and experience to calculate accurate shots from an elevated position at distance. But, for some reason the 64-year-old-man decided it was warranted to drag at least 23 guns and hundreds of pounds of ammunition in ten separate suitcases to his room at the Mandalay Bay. A person with the intelligence displayed in the planning of this event would know that most of these rifles were not needed in the slightest to achieve the effect desired. They are dead weight, and moving them into the Mandalay only presented unnecessary risk of discovery. Unless, of course, the original plan involved multiple shooters.

A strange year?: Family and acquaintances have mentioned Paddock's propensity for "disappearing" in the year previous to the Vegas attack. And, there is the fact that 33 of the 47 firearms Paddock owned were purchased in the last 12 months.

Security calls: Paddock called hotel security at least twice to complain about "loud music" on the floor below him the day of the shooting. Why would a mass shooter care, or take the risk of drawing too much attention to himself?

The windows: Why, after so much careful planning, did Paddock expose his position by smashing two separate windows in his adjacent hotel rooms? There are other ways of providing a shooter's loophole with less exposure? Very odd. Almost as if the decision to actually shoot was made suddenly, which does not fit the rest of the narrative or evidence.

"Unrelated" room alarm leads security right to Paddock: The Las Vegas Sheriffs Department indicates that security was originally led directly to the floor that Paddock was shooting from by a "door alarm" that was set off by someone three rooms down from him. Now, authorities have been forced to admit that this alarm and the confrontation between security and Paddock took place BEFORE he began his shooting spree. This means that police should have been alerted to Paddock's presence and exact location in advance of the attack. Who set off this alarm which conveniently helped to give away Paddock's position early, and why?

The surveillance cameras: Paddock had a head start on security, SWAT and anyone else that approached his rooms. He fired at hotel security through his door injuring employee Jesus Campos. He also had thousands of rounds of ammunition including .308 rounds which could easily be fired through several walls on the floor of his hotel room. Why did Paddock prepare for an escape, use his cameras to allow him to fire at hotel security through his door, equip rounds capable of annihilating any SWAT team that stacked up to breach his room, but decided to shoot himself instead before SWAT ever entered? Some people might argue that there is no logic to the mind of a "madman," but again, I've seen no evidence that Paddock was insane beyond the criminal act itself. Also, the hotel had its own surveillance in the hall near Paddock's rooms. No one noticed the man placing cameras about the area?

Multiple shooters?: Las Vegas County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo is quoted as saying that it was only logical to assume given the evidence that Paddock "had some help at some point" in the staging of the Vegas attack. To me, this is absolutely clear in the tactical planning. Paddock does not appear to have the background or training to have chosen and staged the perch.

The report suggesting that a phone charger was found that did not belong to Paddock has since been refuted by police, as well as the report that his card key was used to access his room while Paddock was gone. Of course, hotel surveillance would prove this one way or the other and should be made available to the public.

Still, there are multiple accounts by witnesses that there may have been a second shooter, including the initial reports given by first responders on the scene, who were told a shooter was on the 29th floor as well as the 32nd floor. All of these accounts have been dismissed as a result of "panic" and the fog of war.

The mystery woman: A witness on site at the concert stated that a woman (and her apparent boyfriend) approached people near the stage 45 minutes before the attack, telling them that "they were all going to die." She was later escorted out of the venue by security. Who was this woman? Was she trying to menace the concertgoers or warn them? Or, was it all coincidence?

Conclusion

In my view, there is simply no way that a man with Stephen Paddock's history and background committed the Vegas shooting alone. There is no motive, no clear evidence of mental illness, no ideological markers and nothing to be gained. The tactical expertise displayed in most cases shows considerable training. Theories will abound. It is possible that he was used. It is also possible that he was secretly radicalized and trained, as ISIS has continuously asserted since the attack. Or, perhaps he never pulled a single trigger and somehow ended up shot through the head in a room full of guns overlooking Las Vegas Blvd. and dozens of dead concertgoers.

The most disturbing aspect of this event and the mainstream narrative, though, is what it insinuates. It insinuates that anyone no matter how seemingly normal could one day simply "snap" and murder crowds of people with impunity. It is the anti-Second Amendment narrative personified, because if "anyone" is capable of such horror, and motive is nonexistent, then the mere existence of firearm access means that we are surrounded by millions of latent mass shooters. That is to say, we are supposed to fear everyone around us at all times. I will write about the solution to this problem in my next article. In the meantime, I suggest everyone ponder on the oddities of this event and continue to ask questions.