DEEP STATE WANTS WAR MAKE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

Instigating a march to war through the use of unfounded fear, misinformation, staged photo ops, and appealing to passions and prejudices was as revolting to Albert Einstein in the 1930s as it is today to normal thinking individuals.

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” – Albert Einstein

Think of the above in the next several months as the elite push us closer to war with North Korea, Russia and other nations we are already engaged in military action with like Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq and the like!!!

The use of graphic images, electronically transmitted across the world in an instant, along with a consistent FALSE narrative promoted by the captured corporate media, is the preferred means of appealing to the emotions of those who want to believe atrocity propaganda.

The problem is no one is capable of saving the USA Titanic. The iceberg was struck sixteen years ago when the Deep State engineered a plundering campaign driving the national debt from $5.8 trillion to $20 trillion, and unfunded welfare liabilities to $200 trillion. Unpaid for tax cuts will not save us. Unpaid for shovel ready infrastructure projects will not save us. Threatening foreign countries with tariffs will not bring manufacturing jobs back. Excessively low interest rates will not spur investment, but it will create a pension crisis and impoverish senior citizens.

The only question at this point is whether Trump has already been co-opted by the Deep State military industrial complex or whether he is being manipulated through false flags and traditional propaganda techniques. Based on the slow progress on his domestic agenda of immigration reform, Obamacare repeal, tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and trade reform, it appears Trump decided to take the advice of neo-cons within and outside his administration and distract the masses with some new military adventurism.

The relentless pounding of the Russian hacking narrative put Trump on the defensive. As Syria and Russia were on the verge of crushing the ISIS/Al Qaeda/“moderate rebel” resistance, a new false flag was needed. As McArthur so accurately described seven decades ago, the incessant propaganda of fear is what enriches the military industrial complex.

( some of the above courtesy of zerohedge.com)

TRUMP IS A BECOMING A PATSY!

I voted for him but he is quickly becoming a disappointment. Read the following excerpt from an article on zerohedge.com, says why the flip flop by Trump since he got elected. The following is SPOT ON!:

“This leads to the next reason why I believe Trump has so swiftly reversed his positions: Perhaps he and his establishment handlers no longer need to maintain the conservative sovereignty facade because a full spectrum crisis is about to take place; a crisis so consuming that the public will be completely distracted while the elites push their agenda forward and blame conservatives at the same time.

The move against North Korea may be part of this event. By itself, North Korea would be a very cumbersome regional war that could bankrupt the U.S. The level of determination to increase tensions with North Korea is truly astounding. I have not seen such senseless rhetoric from the White House since the Iraq War.

However, I continue to believe that a greater crisis is brewing that is economic and global in nature. With numerous financial bubbles artificially inflated over at least eight years of central bank stimulus, the question is not “if” but when the system will enter the final stages of its ongoing collapse.

The behavior of the Trump administration may be nothing more than poor timing or poor planning on the part of the globalist establishment. Perhaps they just didn’t play this part of the long game in an expert manner. But, I tend towards caution rather than naive hope and unicorns.

The record setting flip-flop by Trump should not be taken lightly or simply treated as aimless schizophrenia on the part of the White House. While the Obama administration flipped on numerous campaign promises, they did so subtly while maintaining their lies in a strategic way for two full terms. This is not what is happening today. Trump’s dramatic change, in my view, should be taken as a signal that a much greater game is afoot, with far higher stakes. It should also be treated as a sign that if a crisis is on the verge of being engineered, then it will be happening rather soon, perhaps before 2017 is over.

There will be ongoing arguments as to whether the Trump White House has been hijacked or if it was a controlled element all along. I lean towards the position that it was controlled all along. I have seen little to no resistance on the part of Trump against the establishment, only rhetoric. And, as I have said so many times, rhetoric is meaningless, only actions matter.

It is exceedingly positive in a way that Trump’s reversal has been so fast and so complete. It shows that conservatives and liberty champions have not been subsumed into the so called “alt-right” (a made up term designed to pigeonhole and demonize all true conservatives); that the elites failed miserably in their plans to co-opt us. That said, for every success there are consequences. It may be that our refusal to “buy into” the Trump momentum and cast off our skepticism has caused the establishment to adjust their timetable. And, when the elites do not get what they want, they tend to fall back on their tried and true tool kit of violence and disaster.”

America is NOT going to Change!

Until the elite are taken out of control and this will require literal rebellion by the American public the President remains a puppet that really has no control and the Congress and Senate are filled with elite backed politicians plain and simple!

Things are not going to change. The swamp is still full and being stocked with more alligators, and we may have been faked out again.

Read on………………….

Why There Will Never Be A Political Solution To America’s Problems

Why do things never seem to change no matter who we send to Washington?

It seems like for decades many of us have been trying to change the direction of this country by engaging in the political process. But no matter how hard we try, the downward spiral of our nation just continues to accelerate. Just look at this latest spending deal. Even though the American people gave the Republicans control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, this deal very closely resembles “an Obama administration-era budget”. It increases spending even though we have already been adding more than a trillion dollars a year to the national debt, it specifically forbids the building of a border wall, it fully funds Planned Parenthood, and there are dozens of other concessions to the Democrats in it. As I previously warned, these “negotiations” were a political rout of epic proportions.

Perhaps many of us were being highly unrealistic when we expected that Donald Trump could change things. Because fixing America is going to take a lot more than getting the right number of “red” or “blue” politicians to Washington. Rather, the truth is that the real problem lies in our hearts, and the corrupt politicians that currently represent us are simply a reflection of who we have become as a nation

The generations of people that founded this nation and established it as the greatest republic that the world had ever seen had far different values than most Americans do today.

So until there is a dramatic shift in how most of us see the world, it is quite likely that not much in Washington will change.

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump spoke boldly about “draining the swamp”, but this spending deal very much reflects the swamp’s priorities. The Washington Post has published a list of eight ways that “Trump got rolled in his first budget negotiation”, and in this case the Post is quite correct…

1. There are explicit restrictions to block the border wall.
2. Non-defense domestic spending will go up, despite the Trump team’s insistence he wouldn’t let that happen.
3. Barack Obama’s cancer moonshot is generously funded.
4. Trump fought to cut the Environmental Protection Agency by a third. The final deal trims its budget by just 1 percent, with no staff cuts.
5. He didn’t defund Planned Parenthood.
6. The president got less than half as much for the military as he said was necessary.
7. Democrats say they forced Republicans to withdraw more than 160 riders.
8. To keep negotiations moving, the White House already agreed last week to continue paying Obamacare subsidies.

In essence, the Democrats got virtually everything that they wanted, and the Republicans got next to nothing.

Trump and the Republicans are promising that they will fight harder “next time”, but we have already heard that empty promise from Republicans year after year going all the way back to 2011.

Among many other conservative pundits, author Daniel Horowitz is absolutely blasting these “weak-kneed Republicans”…

Now, with control of all three branches and a president who sold himself in the primaries as the antithesis of weak-kneed Republicans who don’t know the first thing about tough negotiations, we are in the exact same position. Last night, President Trump signaled that, after not even fighting on refugee resettlement and Planned Parenthood, he would cave on the final budget issue – the funding of the border fence. But fear not, he’ll resume his demand … the next time!

This degree of capitulation, with control of all three branches, is impressing even me … and I had low expectations of this president and this party. They have managed to get run over by a parked car. It’s truly breathtaking to contrast the performance of Democrats in the spring of 2009 with what Republicans have done today with all three branches. At this time in 2009, Democrats passed the bailouts, the stimulus, the first round of financial regulations, an equal pay bill, SCHIP expansion, and laid the groundwork for other, bigger proposals, such as cap and trade and Obamacare. Then they got everything they wanted in the March 2009 omnibus bill, and a number of GOP senators voted for it. We, on the other hand, are left with nothing.

And even the mainstream media is admitting that the Democrats made out like bandits in this deal.

Just check out the following quotes…

“Overall, the compromise resembles more of an Obama administration-era budget than a Trump one,” Bloomberg reports.
The Associated Press calls it “a lowest-common-denominator measure that won’t look too much different than the deal that could have been struck on Obama’s watch last year.”
Reuters: “While Republicans control the House, Senate and White House, Democrats scored … significant victories in the deal.”
The Los Angeles Times describes the agreement as “something of an embarrassment to the White House”: “Trump engineered the fiscal standoff shortly after he was elected, insisting late last year that Congress should fund the government for only a few months so he could put his stamp on federal spending as the new president.”

If Trump can’t get his priorities funded now, do you think that the Democrats will somehow become more agreeable after he has spent a year or two in the White House?

Of course not.

If there ever was going to be a border wall, it was going to happen now.

If Planned Parenthood was ever going to be defunded, it was going to happen now.

The next “big battle” is going to be over a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, but the truth is that “Trumpcare” is going to end up looking very much like Obamacare.

Instead of repealing it, the Republicans are trying to “fix” Obamacare, and that is kind of like going to the dump and trying to “fix” a big, steaming pile of garbage.

But like I explained earlier, we should not expect things to move in a positive direction in Washington D.C. until the values of those representing us change.

At this point, there are only a few dozen members of the House and a handful of members of the Senate that even give lip service to the values of our founders.

And until our values change, we are not going to send representatives to Washington that share the values of our founders.

Sadly, most Americans know very little about the history of early America. I would encourage everyone to look into why our founders came to this country in the first place, what they believed was most important in life, and how they viewed the world.

If we ever want to “make America great again”, we need to return to those values. Otherwise, we are just blowing a lot of hot air.

(courtesy of zerohedge.com)

THIS IS A MUST READ….WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING??? LENGTHY BUT VERY INFORMATIVE AND EYE OPENING!

America’s financial war strategy

America’s renewed desire to escalate military tensions is a front for America’s continual financial war, this time directed at North Korea, Syria and possibly Iran. This is likely to be the opinion of China’s strategic advisors. We analyse the geopolitics and economics behind America’s war strategy from China’s perspective, concluding that it is entering its final phase. China’s exit plan appears to be to tie the pricing of energy and then other major commodities to gold, returning to the pre-1971 status quo, when the dollar was just a settlement link between commodity prices and gold. Except this time, the dollar itself will be side-lined, so far as China is concerned, which will use the yuan instead for its empire, which will be far larger than that of the US in time, measured by GDP.

Introduction

The day President Trump assumed office, it appeared that at last there would be détente with Russia, leading to America’s withdrawal from unwinnable conflicts and towards a new peaceful agreement between these long-term enemies. However, within the traditional presidential bedding-down period of one hundred days, Trump has gone from his electoral platform of disengagement from foreign ventures to overt aggression in multiple locations.

Something major has changed his thinking. Trump has committed no less than five acts of foreign aggression in that short time, with a sixth pending. The first was a joint operation with Emirati commandos in Yemen, which backfired, leading to the death of a Navy SEAL. The second was the recent attack on a Syrian airfield, in response to an alleged poison gas attack. The third is the escalation of military threats against North Korea. The fourth is the bombing of a cave network in Eastern Afghanistan. And the fifth is the deployment of more troops to Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria to step up the fight against ISIS. The rhetoric is also being ramped up against America’s long-term bogeyman, Iran.

The three theatres of war that offer the best prospects for further escalation are Syria, Korea, and Iran. They are in two regions where significant quantities of dollars are owned and invested, offering the potential for capital flight, which should be kept in mind, when reading this article.

Trump is also seeking congressional approval for an increase in defence spending totalling $54bn, a massive increase which, to put it in perspective, compares with Russia’s total defence budget of $66bn.

The default assumption is that American military power and weapons technology guarantees battlefield objectives will be achieved. This hasn’t usually been the case since the first Iraq invasion in 1990. Since then, any initial success has been more than outweighed by subsequent failures and unintended consequences. It is because of American-led operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria that Europe is flooded with refugees, bringing undercover terrorists with them. There can be little doubt that a dispassionate analyst would recommend America abandons military action, so there must be other reasons behind America’s war-mongering.

China, itself a long-time strategic target for American aggression, is sure to be worried about the escalation of threats to North Korea, and with good reason. In terms of trade, South Korea is now an important trading partner, and for that reason, China will not want to see the situation on the Korean peninsula deteriorate. She will also not want America securing territory which abuts her border. Russia has a small border with North Korea as well and is likely to share that view. However, Russia’s trade is not so much with South Korea, but she is a major arms supplier to the North.

The only leader with good access to North Korea’s president, Kim Jong-un, is Russia’s President Putin. When Trump was first elected, negotiations with North Korea were a realistic option, and there was even talk of Trump meeting Kim Jong-un to negotiate. The route to negotiations was always through Putin, and if that is not actually closed, it is made much more difficult, because of America’s action launching missiles against Russia’s interests in Syria.

While the renewal of hostilities in Korea threatens to resume (they never officially ended in 1953), China and Russia are sure to avoid escalating the situation. President Xi will have made his own assessment of President Trump to this end, which was probably the most important reason for the meeting at Mar-a-Lago, from Xi’s point of view. The rather casual way in which Xi is reported to have been told about the missile strike against Syria over chocolate cake looks like a businessman’s power-play to impress an opponent. It was not an action of statesmanship. Xi is likely to have thought it amateurish, even a sign of weakness, and might have given Putin a debrief of the meeting including this view.

The relationship between Russia and China is strong, and they are likely to coordinate their strategic responses to American aggression in both Korea and Syria. The question is, if America continues to escalate its bellicose actions against North Korea, Syria, and possibly Iran, what will their response be? For clues, we should look at this from China’s point of view. The People’s Liberation Army’s most influential strategist, Major-General Qiao Liang laid out his overall strategic philosophy at a book-study forum of the Communist Party’s Central Committee in Autumn 2015. His view can be taken to be that of the Chinese leadership.i

China’s working assumptions

Qiao’s economic analysis and conclusions are both interesting and important, but it should be read for what is not said, as much as what is said. His paper will have been examined and cleared by China’s leadership, before being made publicly available. To that extent, there is likely to be an element of disinformation involved as well. It will also have been intended to be studied by foreign governments, alerting them to America’s true motives.

With these cautions in mind, we can proceed. Qiao’s principal thesis is that America uses the dollar to manage external trade and finance for its domestic benefit. Many of us are familiar with the proposition that by exporting dollars and dollar-denominated bank credit, America creates wealth for both the US government and the major American banks, and that the dollar’s reserve status is accordingly vital to the US economy. But Qiao takes this much further, claiming that since the dollar’s peg to the gold price was abandoned, America has initiated a cycle of economic boom and bust among foreign users of the dollar for its own benefit. As Qiao puts it:

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.

In other words, America’s wealth is sustained by a pump-and-dump operation facilitated by the dollar’s reserve status, replacing genuine industrial production. It is worth clarifying one point: foreign owned dollars never leave the US, only their function. It is more correct to state that the US Government causes dollars to be diverted from foreign trade and investment in manufacturing, to be invested in Treasuries. It can do this by increasing the risks of other uses compared with owning US Treasuries, which are deemed to be “risk free”.

The first cycle identified by Qiao was the expansion of dollars aimed at creating a boom in Latin America in the mid-seventies. Bank credit expanded on the back of a weak dollar. America then raised interest rates to strengthen the dollar when inflation threatened, leading to dollars being switched from riskier uses into safe-haven Treasuries. A widespread financial crisis in Latin America ensued. This allowed American investors subsequently to buy productive assets at rock-bottom prices (the Brady bonds). Meanwhile, the US stock market rose strongly from 1981 onwards, as interest rates subsequently declined.

The second cycle was aimed at South-East Asia, which expanded on the back of a dollar that weakened from 1986 onwards. From 1995, the dollar began to strengthen, culminating in a bear-raid on the Thai baht, which spread to Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries in the region. The Asian Tiger phenomenon was created and destroyed, not by the countries themselves, but by the flood and ebb of dollar ownership and investment. Qiao notes that China escaped being caught up in this US-inspired operation. Again, dollars flowed back into US assets, this time fuelling the tech boom, which had another two years to run.

Qiao goes so far to state that the most important event in the twentieth century was not the two world wars, but America’s abandonment of the gold standard in 1971. This is some statement. While he explains the events that led up to this event convincingly, the flaw in Qiao’s analysis is to assume that America deliberately added the pump-and-dump money-making strategy to the benefits of exporting dollar ownership when freed from the discipline of gold. US strategists in the Deep State almost certainly lacked the degree of control necessary over events.

The real reason US interest rates rose in 1980-81 was to stop runaway domestic inflation, which was getting out of control. The collapse of Latin America was unintended. The Asian crisis was mostly the result of bad investment and outright theft of capital, not the premeditated actions of the American government. Qiao claims that the way dollars were deliberately diverted from foreign investment is by America issuing Treasury debt. While the benefits to America of this pump-and-dump cycle might be obvious expressed in Qiao’s description, the expansion of the quantity of Treasuries being issued is primarily tied to credit cycles, not the result of some devious dealings by the Deep State. But we can at least agree that the consequences of America’s mismanagement of her own financial affairs match Qiao’s observations.

Where Qiao’s analysis gets less easy to criticise is in subsequent American actions. He claims that Saddam Hussein was overthrown because he instituted a policy of selling oil for euros, not dollars. That was true, and there is little doubt that the threat to dollar hegemony was discouraged. He claims the break-up of Yugoslavia was to undermine the status of the new euro. The euro lost 30% of its value from that time and was damaged as a settlement option for global trade. As Qiao goes on to say, “after the first cruise missiles exploded in Kabul, the Dow Jones index jumped up 600 points in one day”.

Qiao then turns his attention to the contemporary cycle (in 2015) of dollar management, claiming it was now aimed at China. In his words,

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.

At the time Qiao presented his paper to the CCP’s Central Committee, the Shanghai stock market was collapsing, and ever since then, there have been bouts of capital flight, which the Chinese authorities have had difficulty containing. The main-stream media in the US has been consistently negative. From Qiao’s perspective, everything points to a pump-and-dump aimed at China. However, China has protected herself from America’s financial attacks through its national ownership of the banks and by capital controls. Consequently, only foreigners can sell yuan to buy dollars, or withdraw dollars from their own operations to invest in Treasuries. Therefore, the damage was always going to be limited.

China also bends with the wind. While America increases her Naval domination of the Pacific region, instead of fighting it she merely increases her influence towards the West. This is the basis of the One Belt One Road project, which is already running goods trains as far as Madrid and London.

China prefers her trade partners to take yuan in payment, and will lend them yuan if called upon. In time, yuan payments will have convertibility into gold using the Shanghai Gold Futures Market when it gains greater depth, making it superior to the dollar as a settlement currency, though Qiao is silent on this point. More on this below. Embedded in Qiao’s analysis is an understanding that the Chinese empire will not only become far larger than the US in terms of trade, but by understanding the weaknesses of American financial imperialism, it will be more enduring.

Solving the US debt limit

These future events are implicit in Qiao’s thesis. Let us assume for a moment that his thesis is valid, then Trump’s threats to escalate a regional war over North Korea and/or Syria/Iran takes on a wholly different light. While it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that the US’s Deep State planned to “harvest” Latin America, followed by South-East Asia in the late nineties, we are entitled to assume that the US government’s own strategic advisors would have learned that manipulating the dollar’s exchange rate in this way is a powerful financial weapon, benefiting America’s domestic finances and keeping its enemies under control. By threatening North Korea, dollar investment is likely to flow out of trade and investment in South Korea and Japan, back to US Treasuries.

Thinking ahead, this could solve two pressing problems: the first is to persuade Congress to sanction an increase in the deficit limit, it always being easier to persuade Congress to finance a government at war, and the second is to attract the necessary dollar-denominated capital to buy Treasury debt, without having to increase interest rates. The US Government is bound to be aware that higher interest rates must be capped to minimise the risk of triggering a full-blown debt crisis.

As was the case with the Asian crisis, it seems China will avoid being undermined by these negative capital flows. Unknown to the public, America has already failed in its financial war against China, and needs new victims, which is why the attention has switched to the Korean peninsula as well as the Middle East. Trump now realises the only way his presidency can prosper is to encourage capital flight into America from abroad, and have the debt limit raised to accommodate it. This, surely, is behind his Damascene conversion.

Japan and South Korea will most probably have studied Qiao’s paper, becoming wise to America’s true motives, and are therefore more likely to distance themselves from trading in dollars thereafter. Their private sectors will be slow to understand these financial dynamics, so will remain victims. But for governments and large corporations, the American gaff has been blown. This is likely to lead us into a new world, where the dollar’s decline as a reserve and trade currency accelerates, as America runs out of its pump-and-dump victims. And when that happens, the dollar is almost certain to rapidly lose its purchasing power, leading to a global currency reset and a far higher dollar price for gold.

Gold’s glaring omission

A clue that Qiao’s report was censored is the absence of any mention of China’s gold accumulation strategy. While Qiao was quick to notice the importance of the link between gold and the dollar in the Bretton Woods years, there is no mention of why China has been amassing gold, ever since the original regulations were promulgated in 1983, appointing the Peoples Bank for this function. There is no mention of why gold was promoted to ordinary citizens after the Shanghai Gold Exchange opened in 2002, no mention of why China has invested in gold mining to the point where it is now the largest producer in the world by far, and no mention of why the government retains a monopoly on refining, even buying doré from other countries to refine and accumulate. There is no mention that leads us to understand why Chinese state refined gold bars are hardly ever seen outside China.

China places a great emphasis on hoarding gold, both for itself and its citizens. The public has acquired an estimated 12,000-14,000 tonnes since 2002, and this writer has speculated that the Government has hoarded in various accounts as much as a further 20,000 tonnes since 1983. For the government, this represents an average annual accumulation of less than 600 tonnes a year, mostly at contemporary prices far lower than the current dollar level.

But China has gone even further, seeking to control the global market by making the Shanghai Gold Exchange the largest physical exchange by far. She has now introduced yuan gold futures contracts, which will be followed by yuan oil futures contracts in time. This ensures that foreign traders in commodities and wholesale goods can sell forward the yuan they receive in return for gold, increasing the attractiveness of trade finance and settled in yuan compared with dollars. And when the yuan oil contract is introduced, oil importers will use the yuan contracts to sell oil for gold.

In one simple action, China is ready to change the pricing of oil to gold instead of dollars. All she needs to do is pull the trigger, presumably when she has sold down her own dollar reserves to stockpile industrial commodities. And when oil is effectively settled in gold through the futures markets, we can expect other commodities to follow.

This should come as no surprise to the American state, close to being declared check-mate by China on the geopolitical chess board. The dollar price of gold is likely to rise sharply, reflecting the loss of purchasing power for the dollar, and it will end the American dollar’s exorbitant privilege, enjoyed since the end of the gold standard in 1971. It is potentially the coup-de grace for both the paper dollar and American imperialism.

Conclusion

China is thinking ahead, and has its own unique understanding of how America manages its financial empire for the benefit of its domestic economy, at the expense of everyone else. China has protected herself, and attempts by America to undermine China’s economy have already failed. Attention is now focused elsewhere. The latest war-mongering against North Korea, Syria and possibly Iran has much to do with persuading Congress to raise the debt ceiling, and to encourage capital flight back into a new wave of US Treasuries without interest rates being raised. This neatly explains Trump’s change of heart over foreign adventures.

The current attempt to pump-and-dump the economies of Japan and South Korea by escalating tension over North Korea, as well as countries with dollar balances in the Middle East by escalating Syria, Northern Iraq and Iran, will likely be the last such attempt. China’s publication of Qiao’s analysis has alerted government strategists everywhere to the use of this tactic, reducing its efficacy. America is running out of fools to fleece.

The end game for the dollar and America’s harvesting of foreign countries is therefore in sight, and it will likely end with a final dollar crisis. China could bring this about at a time of its own choosing, simply by introducing the planned oil futures yuan contract alongside the gold futures yuan contract. When liquid enough, oil producers will be able to sell oil for gold, effectively restoring the pre-1971 price relationships. This explains the dynamics being played out at the highest levels, and America has the most to lose. But because China still owns large quantities of US Treasuries and dollar reserves, for the moment she might prefer more time before executing the coup de grace.

But execute it, she will. Her fundamental objective is to remove America’s ability to profit from having everything priced in dollars. Logically, that means getting oil and other key commodities referenced in gold, as they were before the Nixon shock in 1971, with fiat currencies merely being the settlement media. America must be careful not to bring forth the date of her own demise by attacking North Korea, Syria, or Iran.

TOLD YOU SYRIAN GAS ATTACK WAS FALSE FLAG!

TOLD YOU FALSE FLAG!

(from zerohedge.com)

Don’t believe our government’s claims about satellite photography catching Assad’s aircraft dropping the sarin. In fact, the little evidence that has been provided falls on its face once you take a closer look. That’s the determination of Theodore Postol, a physicist and professor at MIT, who reviewed documents released by the White House regarding the gas attack.

Postol said: “I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.
“In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.
Keep in mind that Postol is an expert in this field. He’s been advising our government on weapon technologies since the Gulf War. He’s not some armchair scientist. More importantly, after working with our government for so many years, he’s all too familiar with how unreliable intelligence reports from the White House can be.

“All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report [from Ghouta in 2013], was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.
“I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it.
“And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

Trump supporter here, but where is the conversation about this. ANOTHER BAD DECISION! And before you snowflakes start with your yaps….OBAMA WAS WORSE!

WE HAVE TO STOP BEING WORLD POLICE. TRUMP PROMISED THAT AND HAS NOT DELIVERED!!!!

GIVE ME A BREAK! ARE THESE PEOPLE SERIOUS?

Some students at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh argue that the planned opening of a Chick-fil-A in a university food court threatens the “safe place” for LGBT students.

The Lambda Gay Straight Alliance at the private Catholic university raised their concerns with university officials in recent weeks.

GIVE ME A FREAKIN BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!!

YEAH, THESE ARE FUTURE MENSA CANDIDATES!

MY GOD, I CAN’T BELIEVE THE CAUSES THIS SEGMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY DRUM UP. WHY AREN’T THEY STUDYING, WORRIED ABOUT OTHER ISSUES BESIDES THEIR ‘SAFE SPACE’? I WORRY ABOUT MY ‘SAFE SPACE’ EVERY TIME I GET BEHIND THE WHEEL OF MY CAR. SHOULD I BE DEMONSTRATING ON HIGHWAY SAFETY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD?

SNOWFLAKES CONTINUE TO BE IDIOTS AT TIMES.

I AM NOT AGAINST THE LBGT COMMUNITY, BUT THIS IS A BIT TOO MUCH. SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS A PERSONAL CHOICE BUT BECAUSE CHICK FIL A DOES NOT BELIEVE GAY OR ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES ARE GOD DRIVEN, THEY GET PENALIZED BECAUSE THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT AND SAID IT. IF YOU DON’T LIKE THEM DON’T PATRONIZE THEM!

YOU THINK THIS ATTITUDE DOES NOT PREVAIL IN OTHER MAJOR CORPORATIONS LIKE GUESSING, PEPSI, FRITO LAY, PAPA JOHN’S, MICROSOFT? WHAT A BUNCH OF LIBERAL FOOLS!

“SAFE SPACE” DON’T WE ALL WANT THAT AND HAVE THREATS TO IT DAILY?