The major threads on Trump, here and here, are imo both true and false. Yes there is a quite real attempted coup going on and yes Trump is a criminal slime ball with historic ties to the US and Russian mobs. I maintain it is axiomatic that no President is elected who is not vetted and approved for the job by Those who do such things. As much as there is constant noise and general chaos over Trump's presidency, I maintain that the Trump presidency proceeding quite nicely, if you are a globalist. Here is an article that would agree with this way of thinking, Brandon Smith (September 12, 2018)

Quote:When the ideology of globalism is discussed in liberty movement circles there are often misunderstandings as to the source of the threat and what it truly represents. This may in some cases be by design. In the latest era of supposed "populism" led by figures like Donald Trump, an entirely new and very green generation of liberty activists find themselves hyper focused on the political left in general, but they seem to be obsessed with attacking the symptoms of globalism rather than the source. I attribute this to a clever propaganda campaign by globalist institutions.For example, when globalism is brought up in terms of its conspiratorial influences, the name of George Soros is usually mentioned. Soros is an obvious bogeyman for liberty activists because his money can be found flowing to numerous Cultural Marxist (social justice) organizations and his influence is easily grasped and digested in that way.

Conservatives like placing emphasis on Soros because he appears decidedly leftist and thus globalism becomes synonymous with leftist movements. But what about all the globalists within the political right?

Globalism has its gatekeepers in both political camps; people that manipulate or outright control political leaders and political messages on the right just as they do on the left. While someone like George Soros acts as a gatekeeper for the left, we also have people like Henry Kissinger, a globalist gatekeeper for the right. Kissinger's close relations with the Trump administration or his long time friendship with Russia's Vladimir Putin are brought up far less in the liberty movement these days. Why? Because this does not fit with the false narrative that the globalists are "targeting" Trump or Putin. When you examine these leaders and their ties to a vast array of globalist proponents, this claim becomes absurd.

In 2016, months before the presidential election, the globalist media outlet Bloomberg published an article which salivated over the possibility that Trump would swallow up and assimilate what they called the "Tea Party," ultimately destroying it. At that time the media used the term "Tea Party" as code for any sovereignty or constitutional group, just as the media tried to wrap us all up in the term "alt-right" after Trump's election.

There was a reason why Bloomberg found particular glee in the notion that Trump would absorb the liberty movement. The movement was becoming a decentralized threat to the globalist agenda, a threat that could not be easily quantified or dominated because it had no identifiable leadership. We were a movement based on knowledge and individual action. Our best "leaders" have been teachers, not politicians, and these were people that led by personal example, not by mandate or rhetoric.

The liberty movement was winning ground in every conceivable arena, from the dismantling of the mainstream media through alternative platforms, to the great push back against social justice cultism. Something had to be done.

Enter Trump, a brash pop culture icon with a flare for sensationalism. He was no statesman like Ron Paul explaining the intricacies of America's problems in a measured way. No, Trump was like a wrecking ball, a loud and blatant message to the left that we were tired of being on the defensive and we were coming for them. But the reality was that Trump was not a necessary element of the fight. He never was. Anti-globalism and anti-social justice were already hitting the mainstream. The left was already on the run. Trump didn't create that wave, the liberty movement did that for him, he just rode it into the White House. You're welcome, Donald.

The problem was that Trump was not what he seemed to be to many people. With all his rhetoric against the banking elites which he referred to as creatures of the "swamp" choking Washington, Trump then proceeded to load up his presidential cabinet with elitists and globalists as soon as he was elected. These very same cabinet members and advisers went on to attend globalist meetings like the secretive Bilderberg Group AFTER Trump had been elected. People like Rothschild banking agent and Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross who officially attended in 2017, or adviser Peter Thiel who officially attended in 2018.

This was not at all surprising to me. I predicted this would be the likely outcome (along with a Trump presidency) in my article "Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement," published in September 2016.

The point is, simply picking the side of the political right is not enough to protect activists from globalist subversion. By rallying around controlled politicians and bottle-necking our actions the liberty movement makes itself vulnerable and decidedly impotent.

So, the question arises how do we continue to fight against the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Generation warfare being levied against us? Part of the solution continues to rest in our own understanding of the enemy.

I still hold to the idea that the best way to understand globalism is to study and expose the efforts of a group called the "Fabian Society," otherwise known as Fabian Socialists. The society was founded in England in 1884 and was an extension of the "Round Table" groups being established by global elitists in the West at the time. The Fabians have been at the forefront of almost every pro-socialist and pro-globalist movement of the past century, and while they do not get as much attention as institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations or even the Bilderberg Group, their open discussions on their own motivations and goals make them a prime source of data on the psychology of our opponents.

The Fabian Society has multiple mascots which hint at the nature of globalism. One symbol of the group is an angry turtle with the slogan "When I strike I strike hard," indicating the slow and deliberate nature of globalism and its methodical spread into every aspect of our daily lives. Another mascot they have used in the past is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, a symbol which I think is self explanatory, but to clarify - a person that appears to be anti-globalist in rhetoric or who is criticized by people like the Fabians may still be a Fabian in disguise. Their relationships with elitists will expose their true nature as a Trojan Horse.

I think that the best representation of these people and their thinking resides in their own words, however. Here are some choice quotes from past members:

…The Open Conspiracy will appear first, I believe as a conscious organization of intelligent, and in some cases wealthy men, as a movement having distinct social and political aims, confessedly ignoring most of the existing apparatus of political control, or using it only as an incidental implement in the stages, a mere movement of a number of people in a certain direction, who will presently discover, with a sort of a surprise, the common object toward which they are all moving. In all sorts of ways, they will be influencing and controlling the ostensible government." H.G. Wells: The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, 1928.

"I also made it quite clear that socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well." George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's." Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. … Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive… although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generatio will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen … Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism. … A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government." Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods." Aldous Huxley, "The Ultimate Revolution" March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center

Today, the Fabian Society still exists and operates as a think tank much like any other globalist think tank. Their articles and essays push the latest globalist propaganda from the erasure of national sovereignty to the promotion of gender politics and gender "fluidity." But what can we draw from these writings and the statements of past members?

First, globalists use guerrilla-like tactics to achieve their goals and they often act slowly and quietly over the course of years or decades. The Fabian Society was named after the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously used tactics of attrition and delay to defeat his enemies. Liberty activists need to start thinking in terms of the long game, much like a chess player does, in order to grasp the globalist agenda. The events triggered today may have intended effects which are not necessarily obvious to us now unless we consider how they relate to the greater scheme.

This is especially true in terms of economics. Globalists stage fiscal bubbles many years in advance, and use economic crisis as a catalyst for social change on a grand scale. Usually this results in ever increasing centralization of wealth and power. However, the shift of financial dominance is subtle to those who do not pay particular attention to the details. A market bubble might take a decade to develop before it is deliberately popped. In the meantime all the fundamentals are screaming that something is very wrong, but the majority of the public remains oblivious until it is too late.

Second, control of governments and political leaders is paramount to the success of globalism. The notion that ANY major political leader comes to power without globalist influence is utterly naive. Trump and his swamp creature appointed cabinet are perfect examples of this. Rhetoric is meaningless, and while such leaders may throw their base a bone now and then, in the end their actions only push the ball forward for the globalists. This may even include sabotaging their own presidency to make way for a globalist "solution."

Third, mass psychology is a globalist obsession. All power stems from perception. Figureheads and ideological groups sometimes offer the promise of social advantage to the public without much effort on their part. The temptation of this offer can lead people to hand over their free will in exchange. But not all "progress" is actually advantageous for the masses and misery usually follows such Faustian deals with the elites. Escape is difficult.

Therefore, globalists must control the narrative at all costs. The public has to be divided as much as possible in order to keep them distracted from the guiding hand of the cabal itself. And, any group that opposes them directly has to be co-opted or destroyed. The more people focus on globalists and their organizations as the core source of social instability, the more uncomfortable they become.

Fourth, most globalist actions today rely on 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Generation warfare; meaning, few things are exactly as they seem, ever. I suspect the success of liberty activists has forced them into more elaborate forms of theater. Nothing they do is ever simple unless you have studied the motivations and mindset of the globalists, then they become rather predictable, unoriginal and bizarrely robotic in their behavior. They appear brilliant in the execution of their agendas only because they have centuries of experience implementing the same con games over and over. They are sociopathic grifters; they are clever and without remorse, but not geniuses in any sense of the word.

For now, educating the general liberty movement and the people around us on these issues remains the best method for throwing a monkey wrench into the globalist machine. Countering their psyops should be our pinnacle task, and falling into the narrative traps they create must be avoided. They have spent a considerable amount of thought and energy trying to co-opt our efforts, and that should give everyone pause. For if we were not a true threat, why would they bother with us?

Chris Hedges, one of my favourite writers, is I think, an even better orator. But he's a fine writer too.

Neither he, nor I, nor anyone else who has understood the financial manipulations of the last three or four decades needs a crystal ball to see the final consequences of this.

It's going to be horrific. And it's going to happen soon - as early as 2025 according to Prof. Alfred McCoy anyway.

Quote:Conjuring Up the Next Depression




During the financial crisis of 2008, the world's central banks, including the Federal Reserve, injected trillions of dollars of fabricated money into the global financial system. This fabricated money has created a worldwide debt of $325 trillion, more than three times global GDP. The fabricated money was hoarded by banks and corporations, loaned by banks at predatory interest rates, used to service interest on unpayable debt or spent buying back stock, providing millions in compensation for elites. The fabricated money was not invested in the real economy. Products were not manufactured and sold. Workers were not reinstated into the middle class with sustainable incomes, benefits and pensions. Infrastructure projects were not undertaken. The fabricated money reinflated massive financial bubbles built on debt and papered over a fatally diseased financial system destined for collapse.


What will trigger the next crash? The $13.2 trillion in unsustainable U.S. household debt? The $1.5 trillion in unsustainable student debt? The billions Wall Street has invested in a fracking industry that has spent $280 billion more than it generated from its operations? Who knows. What is certain is that a global financial crash, one that will dwarf the meltdown of 2008, is inevitable. And this time, with interest rates near zero, the elites have no escape plan. The financial structure will disintegrate. The global economy will go into a death spiral. The rage of a betrayed and impoverished population will, I fear, further empower right-wing demagogues who promise vengeance on the global elites, moral renewal, a nativist revival heralding a return to a mythical golden age when immigrants, women and people of color knew their place, and a Christianized fascism.


The 2008 financial crisis, as the economist Nomi Prins points out, "converted central banks into a new class of power brokers." They looted national treasuries and amassed trillions in wealth to become politically and economically omnipotent. In her book "Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World," she writes that central bankers and the world's largest financial institutions fraudulently manipulate global markets and use fabricated, or as she writes, "fake money," to inflate asset bubbles for short-term profit as they drive us toward "a dangerous financial precipice."


"Before the crisis, they were just asleep at the wheel, in particular, the Federal Reserve of the United States, which is supposed to be the main regulator of the major banks in the United States," Prins said when we met in New York. "It did a horrible job of doing that, which is why we had the financial crisis. It became a deregulator instead of a regulator. In the wake of the financial crisis, the solution to fixing the crisis and saving the economy from a great depression or recession, whatever the terminology that was used at any given time, was to fabricate trillions and trillions of dollars out of an electronic ether."


The Federal Reserve handed over an estimated $29 trillion of this fabricated money to American banks, according to researchers at the University of Missouri. Twenty-nine trillion dollars! We could have provided free college tuition to every student or universal health care, repaired our crumbling infrastructure, transitioned to clean energy, forgiven student debt, raised wages, bailed out underwater homeowners, formed public banks to invest at low interest rates in our communities, provided a guaranteed minimum income for everyone and organized a massive jobs program for the unemployed and underemployed. Sixteen million children would not go to bed hungry. The mentally ill and the homelessan estimated 553,742 Americans are homeless every nightwould not be left on the streets or locked away in our prisons. The economy would revive. Instead, $29 trillion in fabricated money was handed to financial gangsters who are about to make most of it evaporate and plunge us into a depression that will rival that of the global crash of 1929.


Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers write on the website Popular Resistance, "One-sixth of this could provide a $12,000 annual basic income, which would cost $3.8 trillion annually, doubling Social Security payments to $22,000 annually, which would cost $662 billion, a $10,000 bonus for all U.S. public school teachers, which would cost $11 billion, free college for all high school graduates, which would cost $318 billion, and universal preschool, which would cost $38 billion. National improved Medicare for all would actually save the nation trillions of dollars over a decade."


An emergency clause in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 allows the Fed to provide liquidity to a distressed banking system. But the Federal Reserve did not stop with the creation of a few hundred billion dollars. It flooded the financial markets with absurd levels of fabricated money. This had the effect of making the economy appear as if it had revived. And for the oligarchs, who had access to this fabricated money while we did not, it did.


The Fed cut interest rates to near zero. Some central banks in Europe instituted negative interest rates, meaning they would pay borrowers to take loans. The Fed, in a clever bit of accounting, even permitted distressed banks to use these no-interest loans to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. The banks gave the bonds back to the Fed and received a quarter of a percent of interest from the Fed. In short, the banks were loaned money at virtually no interest by the Fed and then were paid interest by the Fed on the money they borrowed. The Fed also bought up worthless mortgage assets and other toxic assets from the banks. Since Fed authorities could fabricate as much money as they wanted, it did not matter how they spent it.


"It's like going to someone's old garage sale and saying, I want that bicycle with no wheels. I'll pay you 100 grand for it. Why? Because it's not my money,' " Prins said.


"These people have rigged the system," she said of the bankers. "There is money fabricated at the top. It is used to pump up financial assets, including stock. It has to come from somewhere. Because money is cheap there's more borrowing at the corporate level. There's more money borrowed at the government level."


"Where do you go to repay it?" she asked. "You go into the nation. You go into the economy. You extract money from the foundational economy, from social programs. You impose austerity."


Given the staggering amount of fabricated money that has to be repaid, the banks need to build greater and greater pools of debt. This is why when you are late in paying your credit card the interest rate jumps to 28 percent. This is why if you declare bankruptcy you are still responsible for paying off your student loan, even as 1 million people a year default on student loans, with 40 percent of all borrowers expected to default on student loans by 2023. This is why wages are stagnant or have declined while costs, from health care and pharmaceutical products to bank fees and basic utilities, are skyrocketing. The enforced debt peonage grows to feed the beast until, as with the subprime mortgage crisis, the predatory system fails because of massive defaults. There will come a day, for example, as with all financial bubbles, when the wildly optimistic projected profits of industries such as fracking will no longer be an effective excuse to keep pumping money into failing businesses burdened by debt they cannot repay.


"The 60 biggest exploration and production firms are not generating enough cash from their operations to cover their operating and capital expenses," Bethany McLean writes of the fracking industry in an article titled "The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground" that appeared in The New York Times. "In aggregate, from mid-2012 to mid-2017, they had negative free cash flow of $9 billion per quarter."


The global financial system is a ticking time bomb. The question is not if it will explode but when it will explode. And once it does, the inability of the global speculators to use fabricated money with zero interest to paper over the debacle will trigger massive unemployment, high prices for imports and basic services, and a devaluation in which the dollar will become nearly worthless as it is abandoned as the world's reserve currency. This manufactured financial tsunami will transform the United States, already a failed democracy, into an authoritarian police state. Life will become very cheap, especially for the vulnerableundocumented workers, Muslims, poor people of color, girls and women, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist critics branded as agents of foreign powerswho will be demonized and persecuted for the collapse. The elites, in a desperate bid to cling to their unchecked power and obscene wealth, will disembowel what is left of the United States.

History professor Alecia P. Long has a new article out, attacking Jim Garrison. It's full of smears and junk.

https://64parishes.org/the-garrison-tactics

At the bottom of the piece, we learn

Quote:This article is part of the "Democracy and the Informed Citizen" Initiative, administered by the Federation of State Humanities Councils. The initiative seeks to deepen the public's knowledge and appreciation of the vital connections between democracy, the humanities, journalism, and an informed citizenry. The Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities thanks The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for their generous support of this initiative and the Pulitzer Prizes for their partnership.

Quote:[FONT=&amp]Bizarre though it may sound to the modern ear, a number of famous Americans and companies were involved with the European fascist regimes of the 1930s, including William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (banker, head of Alcoa, and Secretary of the Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, General Electric, and many in Hollywood.[/FONT]

Quote:LSU PROFESSOR WEIGHS IN ON RELEASE OF JFK DOCUMENTS

The release of the new files about former President John F. Kennedy produced no new evidence for conspiracy theorists, but University history professor Alecia P. Long said the release of the new documents is much like the search for the Holy Grail, and will produce few answers to long-standing questions.

"People are convinced the thing' is going to be there." Long said. "I don't think it's going to be there."

..Long is an avid researcher of New Orleans history. The center of her latest project is a conspiracy about the assassination of Kennedy that evolved in New Orleans throughout the 1960s.

Long is currently working on a manuscript, tentatively titled "Crimes Against Nature: Sex, Violence and the Search for Conspirators in the Assassination of JFK," but said she has tried not to answer any questions about who killed Kennedy.

...Long said she did not shy away from answering questions about the assassination out of fear, but because she does not believe they are answerable questions.

"I don't want to dig through CIA and FBI documents for the rest of my life," Long said. "I ultimately believe there are certain questions about the assassination that cannot be answered."

...Long said the most challenging part of researching JFK's assassination is the sheer volume of documents. She said typically, a historian will read all of the secondary literature related to a research topic before they begin; however, in the case of researching JFK, there are over 2,000 books published on some aspect of the assassination.

"I will also say that I find the basic premise of many of [these books] to be problematic and would then note take those as seriously as historical studies," Long said. "That is compounded by the overwhelming numbers of primary source documents. It's huge, it's in the millions."

...Long said, from what she has reviewed, she believes Shaw was an innocent man.

Kennedysandking.com chimes in on the huge controversy stirred up by the Austin based TV radio host.

https://kennedysandking.com/articles/the...nes-affair

CAPA's Last Living Witnesses - The New Saeculum



LAST LIVING WITNESSES - The New Saeculum by Bill Kelly



Old Red Court House - Dallas -
Site of CAPA Symposium Thursday November 15, 2018


Shortly after the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) disbanded and locked their records away for fifty years, sometime in the late 1970s, I visited the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in downtown Washington D.C. where I met Mr. Marion Johnson, then responsible for the JFK assassination records that were kept there.


While I was still in my 20s, I had corresponded with Mr. Johnson, requesting records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and he had graciously responded.


But Congress exempted itself from the FOIA, so the HSCA records were out of bounds.


I asked Mr. Johnson why the law stipulated that the Congressional records be kept sealed for 50 years? Why not thirty-five years or seventy-five years?


And he said it was because fifty years was the estimated amount of time it was expected that those mentioned in the documents would be dead.


I said that it was important to talk to those mentioned in the records to verify the truth, and after they were dead, that would be impossible.


How can the law be changed and the records released? I asked.


And Mr. Johnson responded that the only way to do that would be to have Congress pass a new law.


Well that was a tall order, but it inspired me and my friend, college mate and research associate John Judge, to form the Committee for an Open Archives (COA) to lobby Congress to release the HSCA records.


We visited the offices of almost every Congressman and failed to get any response at all, until Oliver Stone made his movie "JFK."


Stone learned of our efforts and before his movie was complete, invited John and myself to visit him in his DC hotel room one afternoon, and asked us what he could do to help us, other than give us money, as all his money was tied up in the film production.


We had been working closely with other researchers - including Kevin Walsh, Jim Lesar and John Newman at the National Archives and on Capitol Hill and over lunch in the Senate cafeteria one afternoon we had discussed the movie "Executive Action," also about the assassination of JFK. At the end of that movie in a trailer they mention the mysterious deaths of witnesses, and the London Sunday Times actuary that said the number of deaths exceeded that of probability.

The HSCA assigned investigator Patricia Orr to review that actuary and she concluded it was wrong, based on bad numbers, but when a Congressman asked her about the unsolved homicides of Sam Giancana, John Rosselli and the strange deaths of George deMohrenschildt and former FBI official William Sullivan, all of whom died after they were called to testify before the committee, she replied that they were the subjects of a more detailed and intensive investigation. Now that we have the HSCA records, where are the records of those more detailed and intensive investigations? Nowhere to be read, even after Congress was persuaded to release those records.


Getting a totally disinterested Congress to pass a law to release the assassination records appeared to be an unobtainable task, but we all agreed that if Oliver Stone mentioned the sealed HSCA assassination records at the end of his film it could awake public interest, and Stone agreed. And against all odds, it worked.


That trailer at the end of his film called attention to the sealed JFK assassination records and stirred up a public reaction that had thousands of citizens ask their representatives in Congress what they were hiding, and forced Congress to react.


But instead of just releasing the HSCA records that we asked for, those lawyers who drafted the JFK Act of 1992 required ALL agencies of government to turn over ALL of their records on the JFK assassination for inclusion in the JFK Records Collection at NARA and to be released in full to the public by October 2017.


Unfortunately that requirement did not include the HSCA records on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., a loophole that had Oliver Stone ask the Congressmen, when he testified at a public hearing, "Do I have to make a movie about the MLK assassination for you to release them too?"


Well, October 2017 has come and gone, and many thousands of JFK assassination records are still being withheld because President George H.W. Bush, when he signed the act into law, added a stipulation that the President and only the President, could order the continued withholding of records for reasons of national security. And after announcing repeatedly that he was going to release all of the records according to the law, President Trump agreed to delay the full release of the records for three years, at the urging of the FBI, CIA and his chief of staff, former General John Kelly (USMC).


Before the JFK Act of 1992 was unanimously passed by Congress (when have they ever done anything unanimously?), the Committee for an Open Archives joined with Jim Lesar's Assassinations Archives and Research Center (AARC) and Jim DiEugenio's CTKA Citizens for Truth in the Kennedy Assassination, to form COPA the Coalition On Political Assassinations, which became the principal watchdog over the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), and is mentioned in their final report.


Although COPA, after twenty years of service, was dissolved after the death of John Judge, its last director, former COPA members formed a new group CAPA Citizens Against Political Assassinations, which is a national organization of individuals, with the distinguished forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht serving as chairman.


So far we have held a 2017 Sunshine Week Press Conference at the National Press Club (NPC) in Washington D.C. that featured former ARRB chairman Federal Judge John Tunheim, as well as Jim Lesar of the AARC, professor John Newman and journalist Jefferson Morley.


CAPA also co-sponsored a Mock Trial that reviewed the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald at the South Texas College of Law in Houston in November 2017, a preliminary step in the legal maneuvers being prepared by the CAPA Legal Committee.


Now CAPA is preparing to hold an all day symposium on Thursday, November 15, 2018 at the Old Red Court House at Dealey Plaza that will present the testimony of living witnesses in the assassination, including doctors, nurses and technicians from Parkland Hospital and Bethesda, as well as witnesses to the assassination, the murder of J.D. Tippit, the arrest of Oswald and other significant witnesses to the related events at Mexico City and JMWAVE.


CAPA also has plans to request a Texas Court of Inquiry that could exonerate Oswald for the murder of the President and Tippit, and conduct an investigative federal grand jury into the assassination and related unsolved cold case homicides and crimes related to the assassination, including destruction of evidence and records and obstruction of justice.


CAPA is also lobbying Congress to hold public hearings on the JFK Act to determine what became of the missing and destroyed records and the legality of continued withholding of records that were required to be released last year by an act of Congress.


We are also continually monitoring the release of JFK assassination records and searching for the missing records that are known to exist but are not part of the JFK Collection at the NARA, including the original unedited Air Force One radio transmission tapes, the HSCA records of the first chairman of the HSCA Richard Sprague, and other similar records that have simply gone missing.


We are also planning on the establishment of a permanent Washington D.C. based research center, a Think Tank focused strictly on the study of political assassinations, an archive of books and records that will be open to the public and include bunk facilities for visiting researchers and a studio apartment for rotating writers in residence, as envisioned by former AARC director Bernard Festerwald, Jim Lesar, John Judge and others.


In working towards these goals, our next project is the Last Living Witness program in Dallas on Thursday, November 15, 2018.

The assassination of President Kennedy is quickly fading from a Current Event, subject to legal proceedings, to an historical event that we can only reflect on.

THE NEW SAECULUM 1963 - 2018


As CAPA attorney and co-chair of the CAPA Legal Committee Larry Schnapf, Esq. has said: "A saeculum is a length of time first used by the Etruscans. Originally it meant the period of time from the moment that something happened until the point in time that all the people who had lived at the first moment had died. At that point a new saeculum would start."


"With witnesses and others who lived through the assassination starting to pass with advancing age, we are entering the final phase of the JFK Assassination saeculum. When it ends, so too likely will be the passion to find the truth as the assassination will be relegated to a mere historic event subject to interpretation by historians who as members of the establishment will tend not to question the Warren Commission Report.."



"The CAPA Last Witnesses to the JFK Assassination Saeculum program to be held on November 15th in Dallas is vitally important to pass on the torch to the next generation."


Although the statistics that indicate most of those mentioned in the secret and sealed records would be dead in fifty years, and it has been nearly fifty-five years since the murder of President Kennedy, it is remarkable that so many significant witnesses are still alive.


We have compiled a list of many dozens of such witnesses, some of whom have agreed to attend our symposium in Dallas this November, and we are seeking more.


To support CAPA and our work on these projects and programs please join CAPA ($50 a year dues), volunteer to work with us on one of our committees (PR, Legal, Research) or donate what you can as we now have tax-deductible status.


JOIN CAPA - VOLUNTEER TO ASSIST CAPA - DONATE TO CAPA at http://capa-us.org

My attention was drawn to the below article on ChinaScope many months ago. I found it to be a fascinating analysis then - and now. It makes great sense to me.

The basic argument is that war, strife and fabricated crisis (like the organised collapse of the Tiger economies by US hedge funds which I happen to know is what actually happened) are the only thing that keep the US dollar pyramid scheme alive and kicking.

Quote:

PLA Strategist: The U.S. Uses Its Dollar to Dominate the World

[Editor's Note: In April, Qiao Liang, a People's Liberation Army (PLA) Major-General, gave a speech at a book study forum of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) Central Committee and government office. Qiao is the PLA strategist who co-authored the book, "Unrestricted War."In his speech, Qiao explained that he has been studying finance theories and concluded that the U.S. enforces the dollar as the global currency to preserve its hegemony over the world. The U.S. will try everything, including war, to maintain the dollar's dominance in global trading. He also discussed China's strategy, to rise as a super power, amid the U.S.'s containment.
The following are excerpts from his speech.] [1]
I. The Situation Surrounding China and the Secret of the U.S. Dollar Index Cycle
A. The First Financial Empire in History
People working on economics or in the finance field are probably more suited to talk about this topic. I will discuss this topic from the [national] strategy angle.
On August 15, 1971, when the U.S. dollar stopped being pegged to gold, the dollar ship threw away its anchor, which was gold.
Let's take a step back. In July 1944, to help the U.S. to take over the currency hegemony from the British Empire, President Roosevelt pushed for three world systems: the political system the United Nations; the trade system the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which later became the World Trade Organization (WTO); and the currency financial system the Bretton Woods system.
The Americans' desire was to establish the U.S. dollar's hegemony over the world via the Bretton Woods system. However, from 1944 to 1971, the dollar didn't gain that power. What blocked the dollar? It was gold.
When the Bretton Woods system was set up, the U.S. promised the world that the U.S. dollar would be pegged to gold while every other country's currency could peg to the dollar. One ounce of gold was fixed at US$35. With this promise, the U.S. couldn't do anything according to its own will. In other words, the Americans couldn't print an unlimited number of dollars. Whenever it printed a dollar bill, it had to add one additional ounce of gold into its treasury as a reserve.
The U.S. made that promise to the world because it held eighty percent of the world's gold reserve at that time. The Americans thought that, with that much gold in hand, it was enough to support the U.S. dollar's creditability.
However, it was not that simple. The U.S. stupidly got involved in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, which cost it dearly. The Vietnam War especially cost US$800 billion. The cost became so much that the U.S. couldn't bear it. Based on the U.S.'s promise, every time it spent US$35, it meant a loss of one ounce of gold.
By August 1971, the Americans had about 8,800 tons of gold left. They knew they were in trouble. Other people continued creating new trouble for them. For example, French President De Gaulle didn't trust the U.S. dollar. He asked the French Finance Minister and Central Bank President and was told that France had about US$2.3 billion dollars in reserve. He told them to sell all of that for gold. Some other countries followed suit.
Thus, on August 15, 1971, then U.S. President Nixon announced that the U.S. stopped pegging the dollar to gold. It was the beginning of the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and also a way in which the Americans cheated the world. However, the world didn't realize it.
People trusted the U.S. dollar because it was supported by gold. The U.S. dollar had been the international currency, the settlement currency, and the reserve currency for over 20 years. People were used to the dollar. When the U.S. dollar suddenly lost its tie to gold, it then, in theory, became a pure piece of green paper. Why did people still use it?
In theory people could stop using it., Bbut in practice what would people use for international settlement? Currency is a measure of value. If people stopped using the U.S. dollar, was there any other currency they trusted?
Thus, the Americans took advantage of people's inertia and forced the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to accept the U.S. condition that the world's oil trade must settle in U.S. dollars. Previously, oil trades were settled in any international currency, but, since October 1973, settlement was limited to the U.S. dollar only.
After unpegging from precious metal, the Americans linked their dollar to oil. Why? The Americans were very clear: people might dislike the U.S. dollar, but they could not live without energy. Every country needed development and thus needed to consume energy. In this way, the need for oil translated into the need for the U.S. dollar. For the U.S., this was a very smart move.
Not many people had a clear understanding of this at the time. People, including economists and financial experts, didn't realize that the most important thing in the 20th century was not World War I, World War II, or the disintegration of the USSR, but rather the August 15, 1971, disconnection between the U.S. dollar and gold.
Since that day, a true financial empire has emerged, the U.S. dollar's hegemony has been established, and we have entered a true paper currency era. There is no precious metal behind the U.S. dollar. The government's credit is the sole support for the U.S. dollar. The U.S. makes a profit from the whole world. This means that the Americans can obtain material wealth from the world by printing a piece of green paper.
This has never happened in the world before. Throughout mankind's history there have been many ways for people to obtain wealth: an exchange with currency, gold, or silver, or using war to grab things (however, war is very costly). When the U.S. dollar became just a piece of green paper, the cost for the U.S. to make money became extremely low.
Without the restriction of gold, the U.S. can print dollars at will. If they keep a large amount of dollars inside the U.S., it will certainly create inflation. If they export dollars to the world, the whole world is helping the U.S. to deal with its inflation. That's why inflation is not that high in the U.S.
However, once the U.S. exports its dollar to the world, it doesn't have much money. If it continues to print money, the U.S. dollar will keep devaluating, which is not good for the Americans. Therefore, the U.S. Federal Reserve is not, as some people have imagined, a central bank that prints money irresponsibly. The Federal Reserve knows what "restriction" means. From its establishment in 1913 through 2013, the Federal Reserve only printed US$10 trillion.
This may lead people to criticize China's Central Bank, which has printed 120 trillion yuan (around US$20 trillion using an exchange rate of 6.2 yuan per dollar) since 1954. Actually this does not mean China is printing money without any restriction either. Since its opening up, China has earned a lot of U.S. dollars and also a large amount of dollars has flown into China as investments.
China's foreign currency control prevents the U.S. dollar from circulating in China. When the U.S. dollar comes, for circulation in China, China's Central Bank has to print a corresponding amount of renminbi instead.
However, a foreign investor can withdraw its money out of China after making money. Also we need to spend our foreign reserves to buy energy, products, and technology. As a result, a large amount of U.S. dollars has flown out of China, but a corresponding amount of renminbi has stayed in China. You can't destroy those renminbi, so China ends up with more renminbi than its foreign reserve.
China's Central Bank admitted that it overprinted 20 billion yuan. This huge amount all stayed in China. This is a topic that I will discuss later why we should make the renminbi an international currency.
B. The Relationship between the U.S. Dollar Index Cycle and the Global Economy
The U.S. avoided high inflation by letting the dollar circulate globally. It also needs to restrain the printing of dollars to avoid a dollar devaluation. Then what should it do when it runs out of dollars?
The Americans came up with a solution: issuing debt to bring the dollar back to the U.S. The Americans started to play a game of printing money with one hand and borrowing money with the other hand. Printing money can make money. Borrowing money can also make money. This financial economy (using money to make money) is much easier than the real (industry-based) economy. Why will it bother with manufacturing industries that have only low value-adding capabilities?
Since August 15, 1971, the U.S. has gradually stopped its real economy and moved into a virtual economy. It has become an "empty" economy state. Today's U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has reached US$18 trillion, but only $5 trillion is from the real economy.
By issuing debt, the U.S. brings a large amount of dollars from overseas back to the U.S.'s three big markets: the commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The U.S. repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting money overseas, and bringing money back. The U.S. has thus become a financial empire.
Many people think that imperialism stopped after the U.K. became weak. Actually, the U.S. has conducted a hidden imperialism through the U.S. dollar and has made other countries its financial colony. Today, many countries, including China, have their own sovereignty, Constitution, and government, but they are dependent on the U.S. dollar. Their products are measured in dollars and they have to hand over their material wealth to the U.S. in exchange for the U.S. dollar.
This can be seen clearly in the cycle of the U.S. dollar index over the past 40 years. Since 1971, when the U.S. started to print money freely, the U.S. dollar index has been dropping in value. For ten years, the index has kept going down, indicating that it was overprinted.
Actually, it was not necessarily a bad thing for the world when the U.S. dollar index went down. It meant an increase in the supply of dollars and a large outflow of dollars to other countries. A lot of U.S. dollars went to Latin America. This investment created the economic boom in Latin America in the 1970s.
In 1979, after flooding the world with U.S. dollars for nearly 10 years, the Americans decided to reverse the process. The U.S. dollar index started climbing in 1979. Dollars flew back to the U.S. and other regions received fewer dollars. Latin America's economy boomed due to an ample supply of dollar investment, but this suddenly stopped as its investments dried up.
The Latin American countries tried to save themselves.
Argentina, which once had its per capita GDP among the ranks of the developed countries, was then the first to drop into a recession. Unfortunately, then Argentine President Galtieri, who came to power through a military coup, chose to use a war to solve the problem. He turned his eyes toward the Malvinas Islands (which the British called the Falkland Islands), which are 400 miles away from Argentina. These islands had been under British rule for over 100 years. Galtieri decided to take them back.
Of course, he couldn't take on a war without the U.S.'s blessing. He sent an intermediary to inquire about the U.S.'s opinion. U.S. President Reagan answered it lightly: it was between you and the U.K.; the U.S. had no position and would stay neutral. Galtieri took it as acquiescence by the U.S. He started the war and took over the islands with ease. The Argentinians were crazy.
However, then U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher claimed that they would absolutely not accept it and forced the U.S. to speak out. Reagan tore off his neutral mask, issuing a statement to blame Argentina for the invasion and to stand by the U.K. The British dispatched a task force with an aircraft carrier, travelling 8,000 miles, to take the Malvinas Islands back.
At the same time, the U.S. dollar appreciated and international capital flew back to the U.S. just as the U.S. wished. When the Malvinas Islands War started, investors around the world concluded that a regional crisis had started in Latin America and the Latin American investment environment would deteriorate. So investors withdrew their capital from there. The Federal Reserve, at the same time, announced an increase in interest rates, which further accelerated the withdrawal of capital from Latin America.
The Latin American economy dropped to the bottom. The capital leaving there went to the U.S.'s three big markets. It gave the U.S. the first bull market since the dollar had been unpegged from gold. The U.S. dollar index jumped from 60 to 120, a 100 percent increase.
The Americans didn't stop after making big money from their bull market. Some took the money they just made and went back to Latin America to buy the good assets whose prices had just fallen to the ground. The U.S. harvested handsomely from Latin America's economy.
If this had happened only once, it could be argued as a small probability event. As it has occurred repeatedly, it indicates an intended pattern.
In 1986, after the first "ten years of a weak U.S. dollar following six years of a strong dollar," the U.S. dollar index started to decline again. Ten years later, in 1997, the dollar index started climbing. This time, the strong dollar also lasted for six years.
During the second ten-year weak U.S. dollar cycle, U.S. dollars went mainly to Asia. What was the hottest investment concept in 1980s? It was the "Asian Tigers." Many people thought it was due to Asians' hard work and how smart they were. Actually the big reason was the ample investment of U.S. dollars.
When the Asian economy started to prosper, the Americans felt it was time to harvest. Thus, in 1997, after ten years of a weak dollar, the Americans reduced the money supply to Asia and created a strong dollar. Many Asian companies and industries faced an insufficient money supply. The area showed signs of being on the verge of a recession and a financial crisis.
A last straw was needed to break the camel's back. What was that straw? It was a regional crisis. Should there be a war like the Argentines had? Not necessarily. War is not the only way to create a regional crisis.
Thus we saw that a financial investor called "Soros" took his Quantum Fund, as well as over one hundred other hedge funds in the world, and started a wolf attack on Asia's weakest economy, Thailand. They attacked Thailand's currency Thai Baht for a week. This created the Baht crisis. Then it spread south to Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Then it moved north to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and even Russia. Thus the East Asia financial crisis fully exploded.
The camel fell to the ground. The world's investors concluded that the Asian investment environment had gone south and withdrew their money. The U.S. Federal Reserve promptly blew the horn and increased the dollar's interest rate. The capital coming out of Asia flew to the U.S.'s three big markets, creating the second big bull market in the U.S.
When the Americans made ample money, they followed the same approach they did in Latin America: they took the money that they made from the Asian financial crisis back to Asia to buy Asia's good assets which, by then, were at their bottom price. The Asian economy had no capacity to fight back.
The only lucky survivor in this crisis was China.
C. Now, It Is Time to Harvest China
It was as precise as the tide; the U.S. dollar was strong for six years. Then, in 2002, it started getting weak. Following the same pattern, it stayed weak for ten years. In 2012, the Americans started to prepare to make it strong. They used the same approach: create a regional crisis for other people.
Therefore, we saw that several events happened in relation to China: the Cheonan sinking event, the dispute over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in Chinese), and the dispute over Scarborough Shoal (the Huangyan Island in Chinese). All these happened during this period. The conflict between China and the Philippians over Huangyan Island and the conflict between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, might not appear to have much to do with the U.S. dollar index, but was it really that case? Why did it happen exactly in the tenth year of the U.S. dollar being weak?
Unfortunately, the U.S. played with too much fire [in its own mortgage market] earlier and got itself into a financial crisis in 2008. This delayed the timing of the U.S. dollar's hike a bit.
If we acknowledge that there is a U.S. dollar index cycle and the Americans use this cycle to harvest from other countries, then we can conclude that it was time for the Americans to harvest China. Why? Because China had obtained the largest amount of investment from the world. The size of China's economy was no longer the size of a single county; it was even bigger than the whole of Latin America and about the same size as East Asia's economy.
Since the Diaoyu Islands conflict and the Huangyan Island conflict, incidents have kept popping up around China, including the confrontation over China's 981 oil rigs with Vietnam and Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" event. Can they still be viewed as simply accidental?
I accompanied General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar of the National Defense University, to visit Hong Kong in May 2014. At that time, we heard that the "Occupy Central" movement was being planned and could take place by end of the month. However, it didn't happen in May, June, July, or August.
What happened? What were they waiting for?
Let's look at another time table: the U.S. Federal Reserve's exit from the Quantitative Easing (QE) policy. The U.S. said it would stop QE at the beginning of 2014. But it stayed with the QE policy in April, May, June, July, and August. As long as it was in QE, it kept overprinting dollars and the dollars price couldn't go up. Thus, Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" should not happen either.
At the end of September, the Federal Reserve announced the U.S. would exist from QE. The dollar started going up. Then Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" broke out in early October.
Actually, the Diaoyu Islands, Huangyan Island, the 981 rigs, and Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" movement were all bombs. The successful explosion of any one of them would lead to a regional crisis or a worsened investment environment around China. That would force the withdrawal of a large amount of investment from this region, which would then return to the U.S.
Unfortunately, this time the American's opponent was China. China used "Tai chi" movements to cool down each crisis. As of today, the last straw to break the camel's back has yet to occur and the Camel is still standing.
The camel didn't break. Therefore, the Federal Reserve couldn't blow its horn to increase the interest rate, either. The Americans realized that it was hard for them to harvest China, so they looked for an alternative.
Where else did they target? Ukraine, the connection between the EU and Russia. Of course there were some problems under Ukraine President Yanukovych's administration, but the reason that the Americans picked it was not simply because of his problem. They had three goals: teach a lesson to Yanukovych who didn't listen to the U.S., prevent the EU from getting too close to Russia, and create a bad investment environment in Europe.
Thus, a "color revolution," took place, which the Ukrainians themselves appeared to have led. The U.S. achieved its goal unexpectedly: Russian President Putin took over Crimea. Though the Americans did not plan it, it gave the Americans better reasons to pressure the EU and Japan to join the U.S. in sanctioning Russia, adding more pressure to the EU's economy.
Why did the Americans do this? People tend to analyze it from the geo-political angle, but rarely the capital angle. After the Ukraine crisis, statistics showed over US$1 trillion in capital left Europe. The U.S. got what it wanted: if it couldn't get dollars out of China, it would get dollars out of Europe.
However, the next step didn't occur as the Americans planned. The capital out of Europe didn't go to the U.S. Instead, it went to Hong Kong.
One reason was that the global investors preferred China, which claimed the world's number one economic growth rate, despite the fact that its economy started to cool down. The other reason was that China announced that it would implement the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect. Investors over the world wanted to get a handsome return through the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect.
In the past, Western capital was cautious about entering China's stock market. A key reason was China's strict foreign currency control: you can come in freely but you can't get out at will. After the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect, they could invest in Shanghai's market from Hong Kong and leave immediately after making a profit. Therefore, over US$1 trillion stayed in Hong Kong.
This is why the hand behind "Occupy Central" has kept planning a comeback and has not wanted to stop. The Americans need to create a regional crisis for China, to get the money back to the U.S.
Why does the U.S. economy rely so desperately on capital flowing back to its market? It is because, since 1971, the U.S. has given up producing real products. They called the real economy's low-end or low-value-creating manufacturing industries garbage industries or sunset industries and transferred them to developing countries, especially China. Besides the high-end industries, such as IBM and Microsoft, that it kept, 70 percent of its people moved to finance and financial services industries. The U.S. has completely become a hollow state which has little real economy to offer investors a big return.
The Americans have no choice but to open the door of the virtual economy, which is its three big markets. It wants to get the money from the world into these three markets so that it can make money. Then it can use that money to harvest other countries.
The Americans only have this one way to survive now. We call it the U.S.'s national survival strategy. The U.S. needs a large amount of capital flowing back to sustain its daily life and its economy. If any country blocks that capital flow, it is the enemy of the U.S.
II. Whose Lunch Will China Take If China Rises Quickly?
A. Why Did the Birth of the Euro Lead to a War in Europe?
On January 1, 1999, the euro was officially born. Three months later, NATO started its war against Yugoslavia. Many people thought the U.S. and NATO fought the war to stop the Milosevic administration's genocide of the Albanians, a scary humanitarian tragedy. After the war, this was soon proved to be a lie. The Americans acknowledged it was a setup, done jointly by the CIA and the Western media. The goal was to attack the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
However, was the Kosovo War really to attack the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? The Europeans first overwhelmingly believed in this theory. However, after this 72-day war, they found they had been cheated.
When the euro was first created, the Europeans had a lot of confidence. The euro's exchange rate to the U.S. dollar was 1:1.07. After 72 days of bombing, the Europeans found something was not right: Their euro was ruined. The euro lost 30 percent of its value; one euro could only get 0.86 dollars. The Europeans realized that they had been cheated. This was why later, when the U.S. insisted on having a war with Iraq, France and Germany were strongly against it.
Some people say that the Western democratic countries don't fight among themselves. It is true that, since World War II, the Western countries haven't fought among themselves, but that does not mean they do not have any military conflicts or economic or financial wars among themselves.
The Kosovo War was an indirect financial war that the Americans fought against the euro. On the surface it was against Yugoslavia, but the euro got the real hit. This was because the birth of the euro touched the U.S. dollar's lunch. Before, the U.S. dollar was used to commanding 80 percent of the international transaction market. It dropped to 60 percent of the market. The euro cut a big pie from the dollar.
The European Union (EU), a US$27 trillion economy when formed, surpassed the economy of the North American Free Trade Area (FTA) with a size of US$24-25 trillion, becoming the world's largest economic zone. For such a large economy, of course the EU didn't want to use the dollar to handle its trades, so it created the euro. The introduction of the euro took away one third of the dollar's settlement business as of now, 23 percent of the world trade is settled in euros.
In the beginning, the Americans were not vigilant about the euro. It was a bit late when they found out that it would challenge the dollar's hegemony. So the U.S. needed a way to press down the EU and the euro, as well as other possible challengers.
B. What Is the U.S. Trying to Balance with Its "Asia-Pacific Rebalance" Strategy?
China's rise made China the new challenger [to the dollar's global dominance]. The fights over the Diaoyu Islands and the Huangyan Island were the U.S.'s latest attempt to suppress its challenger.
Though these two political events around China's border didn't cause a large amount of capital to flee out of China, the Americans achieved their partials goals two of China's efforts died. At the beginning of 2012, China, Japan, and South Korea were close to reaching an agreement on the negotiation of the Northeast Asia FTA. In April 2012, China and Japan had also reached a preliminary agreement on currency exchange and on holding each other's national debts. However, the conflict over the Diaoyu Islands and Huangyan Island occurred, blowing away the FTA and the currency exchange.
A few years later, China finally finished the negation with South Korea on the bilateral FTA, but it does not have much significance. Why? The original Northeast Asia FTA, once established, would include China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. It would be the third largest economy in the world, with a size of over US$20 trillion. Furthermore, it would likely expand south to integrate with the ASEAN FTA, forming the East Asia FTA. That would become the largest economy in the world, with a magnitude of over
US$30 trillion in size.
We can further imagine that the East Asia FTA could continue expanding: adding India and South Asia in the south, the five Central Asian countries in the north, and the West Asia countries (part of the Middle East) in the west. This Asia FTA would then have a scale surpassing US$50 trillion, more than the EU and U.S. combined. For such a big FTA, would it use the euro or the dollar to settle its internal trade? Of course not. This meant that the Asian Dollar would be born.
I think, if indeed there is an Asia FTA, we should promote the renminbi to be the primary currency of Asia, just as the U.S. dollar first became the currency of North America and then the currency of the world. Pushing the renminbi to the international stage is far more than what we talked about previously with the "Renminbi going abroad" or letting the renminbi play a role in the "One Belt, One Path." It will, along with the dollar and the euro, share the world.
If the Chinese could think of this, couldn't the Americans think of it? When the Americans announced that they would shift their focus to the East, they pushed the Japanese to create an issue over the Diaoyu Islands and they supported the Philippines to have a confrontation with China over the Huangyan Island. We can't be so naive as to think this was just caused by the right-wing Japanese or by the Philippines President Aquino.
It was the Americans' deep and careful thought to prevent the renminbi from being a challenger to the dollar. The Americans were very clear about what they were doing. If the Northeast Asia FTA were formed, with its chain reaction, the renminbi, the euro, and the dollar each would claim one third of the world trading market. Then for the U.S., would it still have the currency hegemony if it had only one third of it? Without a real economy, if it were to lose its currency hegemony, how could the U.S. remain as the world's dominator?
Once one understands this, he will know why, behind every one of China's problem, the U.S. is there. The U.S. is preventing China's "trouble" [to the U.S.] up front. Thus it has created troubles for China everywhere. What does the U.S. try to "rebalance" in the Asia-Pacific? Does it really want to play the role of balancer between China and Japan, China and the Philippines, and China and other countries? Of course not. It has only one goal in mind: nullify the trend of China's rise.
III. The Secret That the U.S. Military Is Fighting for the Dollar
A. The Iraq War and Whose Currency Was Used for Oil Trades
People all say that the strength of the U.S. is based on three pillars: currency, technology, and military force. Actually today we can see that the real backbone of the U.S. is its currency and military force. The backing of its currency is its military force.
Every country in the world spends a large amount of money when it has a war. The U.S., however, is unique. It can also make money while spending money on a war. No other country can do that.
Why did the Americans fight a war in Iraq? Many people would answer, "For oil." However, did the Americans truly fight for oil? No. If they indeed fought for oil, why didn't they take a single barrel of oil out of Iraq? Also, the crude oil price jumped to US$149 a barrel after the war from a pre-war price of $38 a barrel. The American people didn't get a low oil price after its army occupied Iraq.
Therefore, the U.S. fought the war not for oil, but for the dollar. Why? The reason was simple. To control the world, the U.S. needed the whole world to use the dollar. It was a great move in 1973 to force Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries to install the dollar as the settlement currency for oil trades.
Once you understand that, you can understand why the U.S. fought a war in an oil producing country. The direct result of fighting a war in an oil producing country was to increase the price oil. Once the oil price shot up, the demand for the dollar also went up.
For example, if you had US$38, you could buy a barrel of crude oil before the war. After the war, the price went up over four times to $149. Your $38 could only get you a quarter of a barrel. How could you get the other three quarters? You had to use your products and resources to trade the Americans for dollar. Then the U.S. government could openly, legitimately print more dollars. This was the secret.
I also want to tell everyone, the U.S.'s war in Iraq was not only for that goal. It was also to keep the dollar's hegemony. Saddam didn't support terrorists or Al-Qaeda, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction. But why was he still hung? It was because he played a game between the U.S. and EU. After the euro was created in 1999, he announced that Iraq's oil trade would be settled in euros. This angered the Americans, especially when many other countries followed suit. Russian President Putin, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez all made the same announcement. How could the Americans accept this?
Some people may think what I said was a fairy tale. Let's take a look at what the America did after it won the Iraq War. Before they arrested Saddam, the Americans rushed to form the temporary Iraqi government. The first order that the temporary government published was to announce that the Iraqi oil trade switched from the euro back to the dollar for settlement. This showed that America was fighting for its dollar.
B. The Afghanistan War and the Net-flow of Capital
Someone may say, "I can see that [the Americans fought] the Iraq War for the dollar. Afghanistan does not produce oil. Then it shouldn't be for the dollar that the Americans fought the Afghanistan War. Also the war was after the September 11 attack. The whole world knew it was to revenge the Al-Qaeda and punish the Taliban which supported the Al-Qaeda."
Was that true? The Afghanistan War started a month after September 11. It started in a rush. By the middle of the war, American used up all of its cruise missiles. As the war continued, the U.S. Defense Department had to open its nuclear weaponry. It took out 1,000 nuclear cruise missiles, replaced the nuclear warheads with conventional warheads, and fired another 900 cruise missiles to win the war. Obviously the Americans were not ready for this war. Why did they rush into it?
That's because the Americans couldn't wait any longer. Their financial life was in big trouble. In the early 21st Century, as a country without real material producing industries, to keep it running at the current level, the U.S. needed to have a net inflow of US$700 billion from other countries every year. After the September 11 event, the global investors showed great concern about the investment environment in the U.S. As a result, US$300 billion fled from the U.S.
This forced the U.S. to fight a war quickly to stop the fleeing. It was not only to punish the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but also to rebuild the global investors' confidence. After the first cruise missiles exploded in Kabul, the Dow Jones index jumped up 600 points in one day. The capital that left the U.S. started to flow back. By the end of 2001, US$400 billion came back to the U.S. This showed again that the Afghanistan War was fought for the dollar and for capital.
C. Why Will the Prompt Global Strike System Replace Aircraft Carriers?
Many Chinese have great hope for China's aircraft carrier. They have seen aircraft carrier's importance in the past and China's Liaoning ship let China join the rank of owners of aircraft carriers.
However, though the aircraft carrier is still a symbol for a major power in the world, it is now only a symbol.
That is because the aircraft carrier is a product of the logistics era. When Great Britain was at its peak, it pushed for global trade it sent its products to the world and took back the world's resources so it needed a strong navy to ensure safety over the water. The creation of the aircraft carrier also served to control the ocean and the sea path. At that time the saying was, "Logistics is the key." Whoever controlled the ocean controlled the flow of global wealth.
Now capital is the key. A few strokes on a computer keyboard can move billions or even trillions [of dollars] of capital from one location to another. An aircraft carrier can keep up with the speed of logistics, but it can't keep up with the flow of capital. It is thus unable to control global capital.
Then today, what measure can keep up with the direction, speed, and volume of the flow of global capital over the Internet? American is developing a huge prompt global strike system that will allow it to hit any capital-concentrated region with ballistic missiles, supersonic planes, and cruise missiles that travel at five or ten times sonic speed. The U.S. claims that it can hit any place on the earth in 28 minutes. No matter where capital is, as long as the Americans do not want it to be there, its missiles can go there in 28 minutes and drive the capital out. This is why the prompt global strike system will inevitably replace aircraft carriers.
Of course, the aircraft carrier also has its own value, such as safeguarding the sea path or conducting a humanitarian mission. It is a good platform over the sea.
IV. The "Air Sea Battle" Will Not Solve the U.S.'s Problem
America brought up the concept of "Air Sea Battle" when designing responses to China's rise. It was first introduced in 2010. As a war concept, it meant jointly combining the powers of the air force and the navy when fighting against China. The creation of this concept showed that the American military was getting weaker. In the past, the U.S. thought that it could use either air strikes or the navy to strike China. Now it finds that the use of only one source does not provide it with military superiority over China. It needs to join the two forces together. That's how this "air sea battle" concept came into being.
The Americans think that China and the U.S. won't get into a war in the next ten years. After studying China's military development, the Americans realize that the U.S.'s current military capability does not guarantee itself an advantage over China's strengths, such as China's ability to attack aircraft carriers and to destroy space systems. Therefore, the U.S. needs to spend another ten years to develop a more advanced battle system to offset China's advantage.
It may mean that the U.S. has moved the timetable of a war with China to ten years from now. Though there may not be a war for ten years, we must prepare ourselves for it. If we don't want a war to happen in ten years, we need do get our things done within the next ten years, including preparing for war.
V. The Strategic Meaning of the "One Belt, One Road" Strategy
The Americans like basketball and boxing. Boxing shows the American's typical nature of respecting power: a direct hit with full strength and the hope of knocking the opponent out. Everything is straightforward.
The Chinese are quite the opposite. Chinese prefer ambiguity and "using softness to conquer strength." One doesn't seek to knock his opponent out, but he will defuse all of his opponent's attacks. Chinese like Tai-chi, which is a higher level of art then boxing.
The "One Belt, One Road" strategy reflects this philosophy.
Throughout history, whenever a great power rises, there is a corresponding globalization movement. This means that globalization is not a phenomenon that has continued from the past all the way to the present; rather it belongs to a great power. The Roman Empire had its own globalization. The Qin Dynasty in China (around 200 B.C.) had its own globalization.
Every globalization was initiated by a rising empire. And that globalization was also limited by the empire's own strength. The farthest location that the empire's power could influence and its transportation means could reach defined the boundary of its globalization. Therefore, in today's view, both the Roman Empire's globalization and the Qin Dynasty's globalization were only considered to be a regional expansion. "Globalization" on today's terms started with the British Empire. The U.S. continued the British trade globalization for a while. Then it switched to U.S. dollar globalization.
China's "One Belt, One Road" is not simply to join the global economic system, which is a globalization under the U.S. dollar. As a rising super power, the "One Belt, One Road" strategy is the beginning of China's own globalization. It is a necessary globalization process that a super power must have during the phase of its rise.
"One Belt, One Road" is the best super power strategy that China can bring up at this moment, because it is a counter measure to the U.S. strategy of shifting focus to the East.
Someone may ask: "A counter measure should be in the opposite direction of the force coming toward you. How can you turn your back on the U.S.?" (The U.S. is pressing China from the east over the Pacific Ocean, but China turns its back on the pressure and moves to the west.) That's right. The "One Belt, One Road" strategy is China's indirect counter to the U.S. shift to the East. China turns its back on the U.S. [to avoid direct confrontation]. You pressure me [from the east], I walk to the west, not because I want to avoid you, nor because I am afraid of you, but rather because this is a smart move to defuse the pressure you bring to me.
The "One Belt, One Road" strategy does not require the two paths happen in parallel. It should have priorities. Sea power is still China's weakness, so we can focus on the land path first. The "One Belt" is the primary direction. This also means that we need to revisit the importance of the army.
Some people say that China's army is the best in the world. It is true if it is inside China: the Chinese army will beat whoever invades China's land. The problem is that China's army may not have the capability to go outside China to fight and win a war?
I talked about this issue last year at the Global Times annual meeting. I said that America chose a wrong opponent when it chose China as its opponent and pressured China. The real threat to the U.S. in the future is not China, but rather the U.S. itself. The U.S. will bury itself. That's because it has not yet realized that a big era is coming and the financial capitalism that the U.S. represents will reach its peak and then start falling. On the one hand, the U.S. has already taken full advantage of benefits that capital generates. On the other hand, via the technological innovation that the U.S. leads, the U.S. pushes the Internet, big data, and cloud computing to an extreme. These tools will eventually become the forces that end financial capitalism.
Taobao.com and tmall.com, both under the Alibaba company, registered 50.7 billion yuan (US$8.2 billion) in sales on November 11, 2014. A few weeks later, the total Internet sales plus the in-store sales in the U.S. market in the three-day Thanks-giving weekend was only 40.7 billion yuan (US$6.6 billion). The 50.7 billion yuan is only the sales for one-day on Alibaba, not including 163.com, qq.com, jd.com, and other online stores in China, nor including any physical store sales.
All Alibaba's sales were done via Alipay (an electronic payment system). What does Alipay mean? It means that currency is out of the trade platform. The U.S. hegemony is based on its dollar. What is the dollar? It is a currency. In the future, when we stop using currency to complete sales, the traditional currency will be useless. Will the empire that is established on currency still exist? That is the question that the Americans should think about.
3D printing also represents a future direction. It will create fundamental change to the human production process. When the production process changes and the trading process changes, the world will go through a fundamental change. History shows that these two changes, not other factors, are the real cause for society's change.
Today's capital may disappear when currency disappears. When the production method changes along the line of 3D printing, the human world will step into a new social mode. At that time, China and the U.S. will stand at the same starting line of the Internet, big data, and cloud computing. The competition at that time will depend on who will be the first to step through this new door, not on who will press the other down. From this point of view, I say that the U.S. has chosen the wrong opponent.
America's real opponent is itself and this change. America has shown a surprising slowness in realizing this point. That is because America has too much invested in keeping its hegemonic position. It does not want to share power with other countries, nor does it want to step together with others into the new social door behind which there are still many things unknown to us.
Endnotes:
[1] China Publication Online, "Qiao Liang: The U.S.'s Strategy of Shifting Focus to the East and China's Strategy of Going to the West China's Strategic Choice in the Game between China and the U.S.," April 15, 2015.
http://www.chuban.cc/dshd/jqjt/201504/t2...65579.html.
[/FONT]

Caitlin Johnston's article on psychedelics is below. I find her highly amusing and very often spot on too. I'ver had all the inner world experiences that she describes as psychedelic experiences - albeit without using any drugs or any other substances at all.

There are both occult and psychological techniques (Carl Jung's Analytical Psychology uses such techniques, for example) and I've been deeply taught in both. When trained by a competent and honest person who has no agenda other than assisting those in their care to become conscious, these experiences can take place. They are life changing and revolutionary... no question about it.

My personal experience and what I have been taught is that use of substances can have deleterious effects - bad trips. This doesn't mean it will happen, but that it can happen. Whereas using meditative and breathing techniques that are safe and controlled and which date back in time a very long way should have no ill effects. They have never have with me.

Thus I would recommend learning such methods instead of trying out psychedelics that I understand can be hot or miss. But it's your life and since you're responsible for that, this has to be your choice. The bottom line is that getting Conscious is now more vital than ever before if we are to survive as a species - because Caitlin Johnstone is right. The people running the planet are psychopathic.

Quote:

Twenty-One Thoughts On Psychedelics

"If the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on."
~ Terence McKenna
***PREFACE: Drugs are bad and the government is your friend. Only rebels and subversive dissidents use psychedelics, so you should never, ever do them under any circumstances or it will make you a bad cog in the machine. Everything you're about to read should be interpreted as a work of fiction or sarcasm or something. Obey.***
The Institute of Psychiatry in London has begun recruiting volunteersfor a study on depression treatment using psilocybin, the psychedelic component in magic mushrooms. Late last month the Food and Drug Administration authorized a similar studyin the US. About once a week, give or take, we are now seeing new studies, academic reports, books and mainstream media articles about psychedelics and their potential effects on human wellbeing.
They're calling it the psychedelic renaissance, the first resurgence of mainstream scientific interest in the benefits of psychedelic substances since the government slammed that door and threw away the key in the 1960s. More and more studies are showing that ingesting psychedelics can be a powerful tool for treating disorders ranging from anxietyto depressionto addictionto fear of death in hospice patients. These studies are always new and surprising revelations to people who have never tripped.
Here are a few thoughts on psychedelics (or entheogens, as spiritual nerds call them) and their place in the revolution:
1. It has been a few years since I've last tripped on any psychoactive substance, but the times that I have have been some of the most profoundly humbling, educational, and formative experiences of my life.
2. The only psychedelics I've tried have been LSD, psilocybin, ecstasy, and pot.
3. LSD is like being launched through a forest with a gigantic slingshot, smashing through tree trunks and tearing your flesh on thorn bushes and coming crashing out the other side with a howl of rainbow smoke and elephant tears.
4. Psilocybin is like being gently guided through the forest by a wise, ancient dragon made of tree roots who periodically compliments you on how well you are doing and loves you more than you've ever been loved in your life.
5. Ecstasy is like staying on the edge of the forest and licking the bark of the nearest tree.
6. Weed sucks and I hate it. It makes me scared and confused.
7. I recommend psilocybin. Obviously.
8. The first time I tried shrooms I remember being outraged that the law is keeping this experience from people. Everyone is searching for a direct experience of the divine all their lives, whether they realize that that's what they're seeking or not, and here it is in a harmless fungus and these bastards put a lock on it. They tell us "No, you can't have this. Keep having imaginary interactions with God on a hard wooden pew while some douchebag in a costume waves his hands over some wine and a cracker." Psychedelics should be legal for adults, and the fact that they aren't is inexcusable.
9. That said, they are illegal. Don't get arrested.
10. It is well and good that psychedelics are being explored as solutions to psychological disorders. But they are so very, very much more than that. They are so very, very much more than tools of social engineering to fix what's perceived as broken about people so that they can become useful cogs in the societal machine. A psychedelic experience that is sufficiently deep delivers transformative, penetrating insights into the nature of consciousness, self, love, and indeed the workings of the societal machine itself.
11. Your own self-realization is the greatest asset you can bring to the revolution against the Orwellian oppression machine that is driving our species toward extinction. Your own corner of the oligarchic propaganda matrixis the part that you are most immediately capable of attacking, so freeing yourself from all delusions is the best thing you can do to help take down the unelected power establishment which uses mass media to manipulate the way people think, act and vote. The insights which psychedelics can deliver are extremely useful means toward that end, so if you feel moved to use them, they are there for you.

12. The late, great psychonaut Terence McKenna recommended taking psychedelics in massive "heroic doses" in order to get at these penetrating insights, which for psilocybin mushrooms he defined as five dried grams.
13. The late, great psychonaut Terence McKenna also died at 53. We should probably take better care of ourselves than he did. Don't build up an ego around how much you've taken and what you've taken and how regularly you've taken it. There are no trophies or awards for out-tripping everyone you know. The goal isn't to amass a large tally of how many exotic substances you've ingested and how much, it's to come to an authentic personal understanding of the nature of life and your place in the universe. If your own inner wisdom guides you to taking a "heroic dose" in order to get there, I'd be the last person in the world to tell you not to, but any inclination to do it because that's what the cool kids are doing or so you'll have an impressive story to tell afterward is born of ego, not wisdom.
14. On a related note, if an experience doesn't take you to an abiding insight or shift in perception which informs your life once the effects of the substance wear off, it was essentially a wasted experience. As far as self-realization goes, you might as well have spent that time binging on Netflix. Having a cool memory or a cool story won't take you an inch closer to the truth of your being.
15. People with severe mental health problems, especially schizophrenia, should avoid psychedelics altogether.
16. Psychedelics alone are not enough to take you to self-realization. You must devote your attention to self-inquiryand resolving the fundamental matteras much as possible in each waking moment, ideally training your attention to habitually examine the nature of self and consciousness before even taking your first trip so as to ensure that you get the most out of it. Simply ingesting psychedelics and expecting them to do the work for you is like buying a treadmill and letting it gather dust in the corner. It's a tool, and you get out of it what you put into it.
17. Just as doing rigorous inner work will enrich your psychedelic experiences, psychedelic experiences will enrich your inner work. They act like how colored dye works for doctors who are trying to see things in imaging scans of the body that they'd otherwise miss; they highlight things about the nature of consciousness and ego that you normally overlook, and those insights act as signposts showing you the way during your regular day to day self-examinations. While conventional drugs have various kinds of numbing, dissociative and escapist effects, psychedelics do the exact opposite: they make everything clearer and more conscious.
18. I like to begin a trip by silently and sincerely asking to be shown what I need to see, and then humbly waiting to be shown. It's led to surprising insights I couldn't have gotten at otherwise.
19. Environment is important. You'll want to be outside in nature and you'll want to be with people you deeply trust. Having someone experienced with you for your first time will make you feel a lot safer, and that will help you go deeper. At at least one point you'll probably need someone to tell you "It's okay, you'll come back soon enough, just enjoy the ride while it lasts." If that doesn't happen, remember me telling you right now that it's okay, you're safe and you are loved, this is just a short adventure. You'll come back soon enough with lots of deep-sea treasures to examine, and everything will be as normal as it was before. Just enjoy it while it lasts.
20. As you shed your illusions and get clearer and clearer, your inner wisdom will come more and more to the forefront. That inner wisdom will advise your psychedelic use, and it will advise your psychedelic disuse as well. If you are tuned in to the inner guidance system which lies beneath the babbling mental narratives, you will at some point stop receiving the guidance to use psychedelics anymore at all, at least for a time. Trust that that is because your psychonautical adventures are heading into different waters, uncharted waters, and enjoy the rest of your adventure.
21. You are responsible for your own consciousness. Not me, not your parents, not your teachers, not the church, not the government, not the police; you and you alone. Do what you think is best. To quote from the Gospel of Terence one last time, "You have to take seriously the notion that understanding the universe is your responsibility, because the only understanding of the universe that will be useful to you is your own understanding."
Amen, brother Terence. Amen.

Watch this first.....



Then follow up with the better and harder-hitting interview with Niels Harrit!



And then push all the buttons you can from wherever you are....

....we were all lied to.....it has all been a sham....

Most who come to this website already know this...but do your friends? family? fellow citizens?

First, Mantik and Martin Hay went after Robert Wagner's book.

Then Wagner fired back, and that link is included here also.

Now Mantik goes after Wagner in a rebuttal.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...ry-later-2