Tag Archive | "technocracy"

Technocracy And The Making of China

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

It was no mis­take of his­tory that China trans­formed from a Com­mu­nist dic­ta­tor­ship into a neo-authoritarian Technocracy.

In this regard, the influ­ence of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, its mem­bers and poli­cies on the world stage can hardly be quan­ti­fied. The Com­mis­sion, founded by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski in 1973, drew mem­ber­ship from North America, Europe and Japan. Out of approx­i­mately 300 mem­bers, only 86 were orig­i­nally from the United States, and yet they cor­po­rately devised and pushed poli­cies that suited the entire mem­ber­ship, and did so under a vir­tual cloak of invis­i­bility that lasts even into 2013.

Today, we reap the “ben­e­fits” of Tri­lat­eral manip­u­la­tion. The Euro­pean economy is trashed, Japan’s economy is still smol­dering from the mid-1990’s and the U.S. is much worse off today than in the late 1960’s. But, the polit­ical sys­tems of these coun­tries are not much better off than their economies. The fruit of decay in the United States is painfully evi­dent with a frac­tured and con­tentious politic that defies rec­on­cil­i­a­tion on even the most minor issues.

My friends at Coali­tion for a Pros­perous America and Economy in Crisis, among others, are working hard to offset messed-up trade poli­cies that put Amer­ican industry in the toilet over the last 30 years. As long as we have some freedom of speech left, orga­ni­za­tions like these are a wel­come voice, even if they are shouted down by the global free-trade cartel.

How­ever, people need to know where and how this all started, and who was respon­sible for it. Only by under­standing the gen­esis of glob­al­iza­tion can modern eco­nomics, pol­i­tics and social trends be under­stood. Can anyone say, “Pin the tail on the donkey?”

Thirty-five years ago, in the November 1978 and April 1979 issues of Tri­lat­eral Observer, Antony C. Sutton and myself wrote the fol­lowing analysis on China. We warned of the dis­as­trous effects that would result if these poli­cies moved for­ward, and we thor­oughly exposed the mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion who were almost solely respon­sible for China’s ascen­dent rise as a world power. That no one lis­tened at the time is self-evident, because nothing changed and no one resisted. (For clar­i­fi­ca­tion, names of Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers are in bold type.)

Tri­lat­eral China Policy

DengXiaopingThe policy of “nor­mal­iza­tion” of rela­tions with Com­mu­nist China — in effect a pro­gram to build China tech­no­log­i­cally into a super power — was imple­mented by Zbig­niew Brzezinski.

A high ranking Admin­is­tra­tion source is reported as saying: “This was Zbig’s baby more than anyone else’s.:

From out­side the White House (from a top policy maker who gen­er­ally sides with Cyrus Vance):

“Zbig is really riding high now. He had the cen­tral role behind the scenes, and he was all alone in the press play. I’m told the Pres­i­dent thinks Zbig did 99 per­cent of the work on China.”

More likely, how­ever, the China policy was for­mu­lated and imple­mented by a Tri­lat­er­alist troika: Jimmy Carter, Cyrus Vance and Brzezinski. And this policy was only a con­tin­u­a­tion of a policy begun under a “Repub­lican” Admin­is­tra­tion, that of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, another Trilateralist.

The heady effect that these vast policy making exer­cises have on these men, almost an infan­tile reac­tion, is well reported in the Wash­ington Post on Feb­ruary 8, 1979 with the head­line, China Policy: A Born-Again Brzezinski, describing how Brzezinski excit­edly describes his meeting with Teng [aka Deng Xiaoping]:

FEBURARY 1979 — The eyes sparkle with excite­ment even days later. The arms erupt in sudden sweeping ges­tures when he talks about it. And that causes the photos — about a dozen of them — to fly out of Zbig­niew Brzezinski’s hands and scatter over the floor of his office as he is speaking.

 “Here’s Cy… and here I am… and there is Teng right between us.… ”

 Brzezinski is talking in that quick. clipped, excited style that is his way, and he is pointing at one photo that remains in his hand while he bends to scoop up the rest, talking all the while.

 “It’s amazing, when you think of it. The leader of a bil­lion people — having dinner in my house just two hours after he arrived in this country!

 “I mean, it really is rather amazing!”


Zbig­niew Brzezinski (left) and Deng Xiaoping (right) — 1979

Tri­lat­er­al­ists And The China Trade

An example of the influ­ence of a mere handful of Tri­lat­er­al­ists in cre­ating self-serving poli­cies many thou­sands of miles from the United States, can be illus­trated by a recent con­fer­ence in Japan.

In early Feb­ruary 1979 a sym­po­sium on the China Trade was spon­sored by the Japanese news­paper Nihon Keizai. The few speakers were mainly Tri­lat­er­al­ists, and the Tri­lat­erals agreed with one anothers’ pro­posals thus cre­ating a power bloc. Reporting in the U.S., the Wash­ington Post (Feb­ruary 9, 1979) cited only Tri­lat­er­alist speakers.

The key Japanese speaker was Tri­lat­er­alist Kiichiro Kitaura, Chairman of Numuru Secu­ri­ties Com­pany, Ltd.

What were Kitaura’s pro­posals? They were:

  • Inter­na­tion­alize the yen
  • Con­sul­ta­tions and coop­er­a­tion between Japanese and Amer­ican busi­nessmen on ways to pen­e­trate the Chi­nese market
  • “Blending” Japanese and Amer­ican technology

Of course, Kitaura thor­oughly agreed with fellow Tri­lat­er­alist Philip Trezise (from Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion) that Japan’s large cur­rent account sur­plus should be invested abroad and not in Japan. Trezise was backed by another Amer­ican Tri­lat­er­alist, Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Inc., who, like Kitaura, urged more Japanese trade.

In brief, this impor­tant con­fer­ence was dom­i­nated by Tri­lat­er­alist thinking, and that was the only thinking reported, yet on the sur­face the Tri­lat­eral link is not apparent to the lay reader.

 Tri­lat­eral Buildup of Com­mu­nist China

Tri­lat­erals pro­pose to build up Com­mu­nist China. Tri­lat­er­alist policy is clear cut. The West must aid the con­struc­tion of Com­mu­nist China: this is expressed in An Overview of East-West Rela­tions (Tri­angle Paper No. 15, p. 57) as follows:

“To grant China favor­able con­di­tions in eco­nomic rela­tions is def­i­nitely in the polit­ical interest of the West” adding “…there seems to exist suf­fi­cient ways for aiding China in accept­able forms with advanced civilian technology.”

Tri­angle paper 15 also adds:

“The sit­u­a­tion is dif­ferent… where arms sup­plies or advanced mil­i­tary tech­nolo­gies are con­cerned, except for types of equip­ment that by their nature serve purely defen­sive pur­poses.” (p. 58)

In fact, as we shall see later, Tri­lat­eral firms have exported even advanced mil­i­tary tech­nology to Com­mu­nist China.

Fur­ther, as part of one world, Tri­lat­er­al­ists see an ulti­mate merging of free enter­prise Taiwan with the Com­mu­nist main­land. Even more remark­able, the paper envis­ages that Com­mu­nist China will return to an expan­sionist aggres­sive policy under two conditions:

  1. as Com­mu­nist China “gets stronger,”
  2. if rela­tions with the Soviets are “normalized.”

The paper adds, “already now, the activity of Com­mu­nist Guer­rillas in Thai­land and Malaysia, linked to each other and looking to China, per­sists and even seem to be on the increase.” (page 59)

So far as Com­mu­nist China is con­cerned, we may con­clude that Trilaterals:

  • Want to build Com­mu­nist China into a mil­i­tary superpower,
  • wish to do this with the full and clear under­standing that China will likely resume its expan­sionist course in the Far East, and
  • are willing to sub­si­dize guer­rilla activ­i­ties sin Thai­land and Malaysia (much of the “civilian tech­nology” cur­rently being trans­ferred has use­ful­ness for guer­rilla warfare.)

Tech­noc­racy Recognized

The transfer of tech­nology was a key aspect of early Tri­lat­eral policy. Admit­tedly, their stated goal of “fos­tering a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” was not fully under­stood in 1978 – 79. How­ever, by June 2001, at least one writer for Time Mag­a­zine (con­nected with the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, by the way) got it per­fectly in Made in China: The Revenge of the Nerds:  China had been con­verted into a Tech­noc­racy! According to the author, Kaiser Kuo:

The nerds are run­ning the show in today’s China. In the twenty years since Deng Xiaoping’s [Ed. Note: count back­ward to 1978 – 79] reforms kicked in, the com­po­si­tion of the Chi­nese lead­er­ship has shifted markedly in favor of tech­nocrats. …It’s no exag­ger­a­tion to describe the cur­rent regime as a tech­noc­racy.

After the Maoist mad­ness abated and Deng Xiaoping inau­gu­rated the opening and reforms that began in late 1978, sci­en­tific and tech­nical intel­lec­tuals were among the first to be reha­bil­i­tated. Real­izing that they were the key to the Four Mod­ern­iza­tions embraced by the reformers, con­certed efforts were made to bring the “experts” back into the fold.

During the 1980s, tech­noc­racy as a con­cept was much talked about, espe­cially in the con­text of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” — the prin­ciple at the heart of the “Asian Devel­op­mental Model” that South Korea, Sin­ga­pore, and Taiwan had pur­sued with apparent suc­cess. The basic beliefs and assump­tions of the tech­nocrats were laid out quite plainly: Social and eco­nomic prob­lems were akin to engi­neering prob­lems and could be under­stood, addressed, and even­tu­ally solved as such.

The open hos­tility to reli­gion that Bei­jing exhibits at times — most notably in its obses­sive drive to stamp out the “evil cult” of Falun Gong — has pre-Marxist roots. Sci­en­tism under­lies the post-Mao tech­noc­racy, and it is the ortho­doxy against which here­sies are mea­sured. [Emphasis added]

Thus, during the 1980’s Tech­noc­racy (and sci­en­tism) took deep root not only in China, but also in South Korea, Sin­ga­pore and Taiwan. Sim­ilar gains were seen in Europe during the 1990’s and in the United States since 1973.  The Tri­lat­eral Commission’s utopian “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” is Tech­noc­racy, and China was the first modern exper­i­ment and trans­for­ma­tion. And, why not China? Dealing with a single Com­mu­nist dic­tator was a lot easier than dealing with a par­lia­ment, con­gress or senate in more demo­c­ratic nations.  The so-called “Neo-Authoriarianism” men­tioned above is ample evi­dence that the cham­pions of Tech­noc­racy knew full-well that it would be easier to trans­form an already author­i­tarian nation into neo-authoriarianism one; in fact, as far back as 1932, orig­inal mem­bers of Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in the U.S. called for a dic­ta­tor­ship in the U.S. in order to imple­ment Technocracy.

This is the rest of the story, of which I was a keen observer at the time. What I lacked in edu­ca­tion and aca­d­emic dis­ci­pline was amply shored up by the con­sum­mate researcher and scholar, Antony Sutton, who was a pro­fessor of eco­nomics and a research fellow at Stanford’s pres­ti­gious Hoover Insti­tu­tion for War Peace and Rev­o­lu­tion in Cal­i­fornia. Sutton is widely rec­og­nized as most detailed and pro­lific writer in the 20th cen­tury on the transfer of tech­nology from the West to the East.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 04/24/2013: Technocracy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tech­noc­racy is Economics

Some people wonder why I write about Tech­noc­racy when the main focus of Find­ings & Fore­casts is the economy. Let me be clear about this: Tech­noc­racy is an eco­nomic system (with polit­ical and social over­tones) that is being increas­ingly imple­mented in the United States and around the world. It demands our atten­tion and scrutiny, espe­cially since there has been no public policy or eco­nomic debate what­so­ever. It cannot be debated if there is no iden­ti­fi­ca­tion or larger recognition.

Tech­noc­racy as an eco­nomic theory was for­mal­ized in the 1930’s by a group known as Tech­noc­racy, Inc. Founded by M. King Hub­bard (the Peak Oil Theory guy in the 1950’s) and Howard Scott (a pseudo-engineer and pro­moter), Tech­noc­racy was care­fully defined in a widely pub­lished work, Tech­noc­racy Study Course. Designed to be admin­is­trated by sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians, Tech­noc­racy insisted that politi­cians were not capable of making good deci­sions about tech­nology they knew nothing about.

When Technocracy called for Roosevelt to be dictatorFranklin Delano Roo­sevelt was elected in 1933 on his “New Deal” plat­form, the only other likely plat­form would have been Tech­noc­racy. It was lucky for us that FDR rejected the utopian goals of Tech­noc­racy for a greatly watered down ver­sion in his so-called New Deal.

Henry Porter, author of Roo­sevelt and Tech­noc­racy in 1932, declared “Just as the Ref­or­ma­tion estab­lished Reli­gious Freedom, just as the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence brought about our Polit­ical Freedom, Tech­noc­racy promises Eco­nomic Freedom.” [Fore­ward, iii]  Among other things, Porter pro­posed to abolish the gold stan­dard, sus­pend the stock exchanges, and nation­alize public util­i­ties, after which he concluded,

“And then, a national awak­ening which, overnight, may well be expected to herald the news to every corner of the nation of the inau­gu­ra­tion of the ‘new deal’ by FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT — DICTATOR. Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their pur­pose if only to pave the way for the Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion — and TECHNOCRACY.” [caps in original]

In this writer’s con­sid­ered opinion, Porter’s envi­sioned “Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion” fore­shad­owed the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s self-imposed man­date to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” in 1973.  Tri­lat­eral co-founder Brzezinski’s sem­inal work, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, was little more than a para­phrased ver­sion of 1930’s Technocracy.

If Tech­noc­racy is indeed asserting itself on today’s eco­nomic affairs, then it should become the hottest and most debated topic of the day — but it is not! That’s why this writer con­tinues to present evi­dence that shows it is not only asserting itself, but it is rapidly coming to dom­i­nate the entire glob­al­ized eco­nomic system.

H.R. 624 — Cyber Intel­li­gence Sharing and Pro­tec­tion Act (CISPA)

CISPA passed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives by a vote of 227 – 192 on April 17, and has now moved on to the Senate. The leg­is­la­tion was co-authored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and “Dutch” Rup­pers­berger (D-MD), and osten­sibly came from almost iden­tical leg­is­la­tion that was rejected in April 2012. There were 37 co-sponsors.

The essence of CISPA is that it gives blanket per­mis­sion to pri­vate com­pa­nies to share cus­tomers’ pri­vate data with the gov­ern­ment. The pri­vate com­pany cannot be legally com­pelled by the gov­ern­ment to pro­vide data if it chooses to not to. The biggest obstacle now removed is “exemp­tion from lia­bility,” where a com­pany can be sued blind for revealing secret and pri­vate data to anyone, including the gov­ern­ment. On page 20, the bill states,


       “(A) EXEMPTION. — No civil or crim­inal cause of action shall lie or be main­tained in Fed­eral or State court against a pro­tected entity, self-protected entity, cyber­se­cu­rity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a pro­tected entity, self-protected entity, or cyber­se­cu­rity provider, acting in good faith…”

Given that cyber­se­cu­rity events are hap­pening on a 24x7 basis, once the gov­ern­ment is tapped into a pri­vate data pool, it could main­tain a con­tin­uous and real-time transfer of data to gov­ern­ment super-computers, such as the new NSA data center cur­rently nearing com­ple­tion in Utah. This new com­puter center is report­edly capable of storing 5 zettabytes of data, where one zettabyte is defined as 10 to the 21st power. As of 2012, no com­puter in the world had yet achieved even one zettabyte of storage.

How big is a zettabyte? A tech­nology reporter sug­gested that one zettabyte is the equiv­a­lent of 62 mil­lion stacked iPhone 5’s that would stretch past the moon. Inter­na­tional Data Cor­po­ra­tion esti­mates that all cur­rent global data grew to 2.7 zettabytes in 2012, so the NSA center will lit­er­ally be able to hold all existing dig­ital infor­ma­tion in the world, with years of room to grow.

If this leg­is­la­tion even­tu­ally passes in the Senate, the skids are greased to aggre­gate all data on every person in the United States. In spite of claims por­tending to fight ter­rorism or cyber­crime, CISPA is the largest data grab in the his­tory of the world.

How will data be col­lected? The feeder system is already in place.

Between 2003 – 2007, the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity, in coop­er­a­tion with the FBI and CIA, have already estab­lished a net­work of 53 pri­mary “fusion cen­ters” around the nation. According to the DHS website,

“Pri­mary fusion cen­ters serve as the focal points within the state and local envi­ron­ment for the receipt, analysis, gath­ering, and sharing of threat-related infor­ma­tion and have addi­tional respon­si­bil­i­ties related to the coor­di­na­tion of crit­ical oper­a­tional capa­bil­i­ties across the statewide fusion process with other rec­og­nized fusion cen­ters. Fur­ther­more, pri­mary cen­ters are the highest pri­ority for the allo­ca­tion of avail­able fed­eral resources, including the deploy­ment of per­sonnel and con­nec­tivity with fed­eral data sys­tems. [emphasis added]

These fusion cen­ters cul­ti­vate rela­tion­ships with pri­vate enter­prises in order to shovel infor­ma­tion to and between fed­eral, state and local law enforce­ment agen­cies. While some defend the exis­tence of these fusion cen­ters, the Senate Home­land Secu­rity and Gov­ern­mental Affairs per­ma­nent sub­com­mittee on inves­ti­ga­tions released a scathing 141 page report that stated, “In reality, the Sub­com­mittee inves­ti­ga­tion found that the fusion cen­ters often pro­duced irrel­e­vant, use­less or inap­pro­priate intel­li­gence reporting to DHS, and many pro­duced no intel­li­gence reporting whatsoever.”

If fusion cen­ters do nothing useful to combat ter­rorism, then why are they allowed to con­tinue and what are they really doing? Simply put, they are the feeder points for the mas­sive data col­lec­tion effort being pushed by the Fed­eral government.

You may wonder, what does this have to do with Tech­noc­racy? Well, every­thing. Three of the core require­ments that are nec­es­sary to imple­ment Tech­noc­racy are found in that 1932 doc­u­ment, Tech­noc­racy Study Course:

  • “Pro­vide a con­tin­uous inven­tory of all pro­duc­tion and consumption
  • “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
  • “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Source, p. 232]

These require­ments are about to be met in full for the first time in his­tory: Full, unim­peded flow of all per­sonal data and com­mu­ni­ca­tions to a cen­tral pro­cessing authority.

This is Tech­noc­racy. It is not cap­i­talism, com­mu­nism or fas­cism even though it has some resem­blance to each. It is total­i­tarian. It is not run by elected politi­cians or rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the people of the nation, but rather by sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who have their own agenda for soci­etal engineering.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 04/10/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


In his classic book Nine­teen Eighty-Four, George Orwell invented and per­fected the psy­cho­log­ical notion of “dou­ble­think.” That is, simul­ta­ne­ously believing two con­tra­dic­tory ideas or opin­ions. Orwell’s Min­istry of Truth building dis­played slo­gans like “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Igno­rance is Strength.”

“The power of holding two con­tra­dic­tory beliefs in one’s mind simul­ta­ne­ously, and accepting both of them… To tell delib­erate lies while gen­uinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become incon­ve­nient, and then, when it becomes nec­es­sary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the exis­tence of objec­tive reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indis­pens­ably nec­es­sary. Even in using the word dou­ble­think it is nec­es­sary to exer­cise dou­ble­think. For by using the word one admits that one is tam­pering with reality; by a fresh act of dou­ble­think one erases this knowl­edge; and so on indef­i­nitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.” (Orwell, George 1949. Nine­teen Eighty-Four;  p 32)

In America today, dou­ble­think is prac­ticed with fine pre­ci­sion at the national level. People who give up and drop out of the work force  become “unper­sons” and are not heard of or from again; but according to the gov­ern­ment, “the economy is fine and unem­ploy­ment is falling.” Con­tinued global mil­i­tary action is con­ducted in the name of “peace.” The onslaught of never-ending cit­izen sur­veil­lance is for our “safety and secu­rity.” Thought police mon­itor inten­tions, resulting in the destruc­tion of rep­u­ta­tions and liveli­hoods. The “Min­istry of Pro­pa­ganda” is never wrong and cit­i­zens are never right.

Orwell, H.G. Wells (Things to Come) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) all penned their respec­tive future­casts while looking straight into the face of the Amer­ican Tech­noc­racy move­ment. The move­ment as a move­ment failed soon after it started, but only because the tech­nology did not exist yet that could enforce and sus­tain their utopian dreams. Those dreamers — and their dreams — con­tinue to live on from gen­er­a­tion to gen­er­a­tion, encour­aged by gar­gan­tuan advances in technology.

When the curve of tech­no­cratic desire inter­sects with critical-mass tech­nology, Tech­noc­racy will sprint to rule the world with a brutal total­i­tar­i­anism not yet seen in the his­tory of man.

As I wrote in Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion Influ­ence in the Euro­pean Union in 2011, Com­mis­sion co-founder David Rock­e­feller readily boasted of their influ­ence in estab­lishing the EU:

“Back in the early Sev­en­ties, the hope for a more united EUROPE was already full-blown – thanks in many ways to the indi­vidual ener­gies pre­vi­ously spent by so many of the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s ear­liest mem­bers.” [Cap­i­tals in orig­inal] (Rock­e­feller, David; In the Begin­ning; The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion at 25, 1998, p.11)

 This was in accor­dance with the ideas of Com­mis­sion co-founder Zbig­niew Brzezinski who wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era:

“The nation-­state as a fun­da­mental unit of man’s orga­nized life has ceased to be the prin­cipal cre­ative force: Inter­na­tional banks and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions are acting and plan­ning in terms that are far in advance of the polit­ical con­cepts of the nation-state.” [emphasis added]

Banks and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions are oper­ated according to prin­ci­ples of Tech­noc­racy: Science-driven effi­ciency is always the utmost goal. When applied to “man’s orga­nized life” you have the reality of science-driven social con­trol, which is exactly what we are expe­ri­encing today.

Should the world be run like busi­ness is run at IBM, Gen­eral Elec­tric, Mon­santo, Goldman Sachs, etc.? Most would say “No” but this is exactly what is hap­pening all over the world.

In 2001 Time Mag­a­zine cor­rectly called China a Tech­noc­racy, noting a new form of “Neo-Authoritarianism” that was easily mis­taken for Com­mu­nism, but was not Com­mu­nism. How did China get “con­verted” and by whom? Again, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers played the lead role as they opened up China for trade in the early 1970’s. The impact of China’s new author­i­tarian Renais­sance is seen in the fol­lowing chart:


Between 1974 – 1984, Chi­nese infra­struc­ture was built up to create a new man­u­fac­turing empire con­trolled by a Western-led con­sor­tium of com­pa­nies like Bechtel Engi­neering, Gen­eral Elec­tric, IBM, etc., all of which had direct ties to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Starting in 1984, their strategy began to bear fruit. Between 1984 and 2012, the U.S. trade deficit with China grew from a minis­cule amount to over $450 bil­lion per year. America per­ma­nently lost mil­lions of jobs as com­pa­nies and indus­tries aban­doned Amer­ican shores for the Chi­nese nir­vana of cheap labor. In the process, America was lit­er­ally plun­dered by these global corporations.

America is rapidly becoming a Tech­noc­racy as gov­ern­ment func­tions are turned over to unelected and unac­count­able experts, engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians. When Obama recently called for a $100 mil­lion ini­tia­tive to map the human brain, he even gave him­self the new title of “Scientist-in-chief.” So, we have an evolving nation­wide smart grid elec­trical system, mas­sive data­bases on cit­i­zens that are being updated in real-time, com­put­er­ized eaves­drop­ping on all phone calls and emails, a never-ending “war on terror” that has mys­te­ri­ously refo­cused itself on Constitution-loving Amer­ican cit­i­zens instead of Islamic enemy combatants.

In the midst of this global and stealthy tech­no­cratic takeover, let’s recon­sider the for­merly sov­er­eign nation of Cyprus. After its com­mu­nist and socialist gov­ern­ment leaders ran their fiscal system into the ground, they finally ran out of cash and had to beg the EU for a bailout. The EU lead­er­ship instead forced them to do a “bail-in” before they would get any “bail-out” funds. Thus far, the bail-in resulted in the con­fis­cating up to 60 per­cent of all bank deposits in excess of 100,000 euros.

The con­fis­cated deposits are being plowed back into equity shares of the nation’s banks prior to being absorbed by global banks for pen­nies on the dollar.

Cit­i­zens 0 — Tech­nocrats 1.

To add insult to injury, Cypriot leaders announced today that they are being forced (by the EU tech­no­cratic lead­er­ship) to dump $530 mil­lion of their national gold reserves as an addi­tional part of the “bail-in.” This rep­re­sents approx­i­mately 70 per­cent of the entire Cypriot gold hoard. If this isn’t a pic­ture of national plun­dering, then I don’t know what is.

Who will buy this gold from Cyprus? Not cen­tral banks! Rather it will be the global bul­lion banks, con­sisting pri­marily of Bar­clays, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, JP Morgan Chase and UBS. Freeing up a 10 ton block of gold is a huge win for the global elite who have been accu­mu­lating gold over the years.

Cit­i­zens 0 — Tech­nocrats 2: Game over

I sug­gested in a 2008 report Tri­lat­eral Plan to Corner World Gold Market that the “hidden” gold reserves of many coun­tries would be even­tu­ally attacked and absorbed by these bul­lion banks, all of which have some mem­ber­ship con­nec­tion to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. My con­clu­sions at the time were:

  • “The mas­sive amounts of gold leased to bul­lion banks will ulti­mately be seized by these same banks as col­lat­eral against worth­less paper loans made to the Cen­tral Banks.
  • “Cen­tral Banks (including the Fed­eral Reserve) could well be left to dis­in­te­grate in order to give way to a single global cen­tral bank con­trolled and fueled by the bul­lion banks who have monopoly con­trol over the world’s gold.
  • “These super­banks are all closely tied to the goals and mem­ber­ship of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, whose mem­bers have method­i­cally car­ried out a mon­e­tary policy designed to bring about this eventuality.
  • “For all prac­tical intent, indi­vid­uals will be frozen out of the gold market at any price.”

Five years later, my analysis looks better now than it did then.

If the Tri­lat­eral elite intend to create a global tech­noc­racy, then they are cer­tainly doing a good job of it. The plun­dering of Cyprus sends a strong mes­sage to the global com­mu­nity: “Don’t mess with us or we will crush you.” Are Italy, Spain, France and Greece lis­tening? It won’t take long to find out. One way or another, expect addi­tional sales of national stores of gold to take place in the future.

My last obser­va­tion is that global Tech­noc­racy will ulti­mately con­trol people by the issuance of energy credits instead of money. The tech­no­crat elites, how­ever, will mea­sure their wealth in terms of the gold they own — and that’s why they want it today!

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 03/06/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tech­noc­racy in Europe

Tech­noc­racy is gaining fur­ther trac­tion in Europe, and espe­cially in Italy. Yesterday’s head­line, “Italy pres­i­dent mulls new tech­no­cratic gov­ern­ment” is a case in point. With the par­lia­men­tary gov­ern­ment in grid­lock, Pres­i­dent Giorgio Napoli­tano is con­sid­ering the out­right appoint­ment of a tech­no­cratic government.

You would think that the Ital­ians had their fill of Tech­noc­racy when former Pres­i­dent Mario Monti (Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion) was appointed — not elected — to fix Italy’s eco­nomic prob­lems. The first thing that Monti did was to appoint a 100 per­cent tech­no­cratic cab­inet that included no politicians.

Italy is no better off under Monti’s tech­nocrats and yet, as Monti trans­fers power to Napoli­tano, the moths con­tinue to fly toward the flame.

Europe is not the first to explore Tech­noc­racy. The United States had a good taste of it under Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy. Michael Burleigh wrote in the Tele­graph (UK) in 2011,

The Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion was the high point of tech­nocrats col­o­nizing gov­ern­ment by invi­ta­tion. Bright, “can-do”, forty-something whizz kids were recruited from acad­emia and industry – the supreme example being Robert McNa­mara, the pres­i­dent of Ford Motor Cor­po­ra­tion in Detroit. The fact that he had been co-responsible for one of the largest dis­as­ters in Ford’s his­tory – the Edsel car, which lost $400 mil­lion and is still a syn­onym for com­mer­cial failure – was ignored.

Nothing was fully com­pre­hen­sible to “Mac” unless expressed in math­e­mat­ical terms. In this spirit, as sec­re­tary of defense, he set about mod­ern­izing South Vietnam in order to win a war he con­strued in terms of bomb ton­nages dropped and body counts achieved. Con­trary infor­ma­tion simply did not com­pute as he set about installing elec­tricity and a fridge in every peasant hut, unmindful of the fact that the Viet­cong took over the vil­lage at night.

It is note­worthy that McNa­mara, like Monti today, was a prin­cipal member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. The per­sis­tent atti­tude of “can do no wrong” that we saw then and again see today, is never rec­on­ciled with per­sis­tent failure. That some­thing didn’t go the way they planned is not their fault, but rather the fault of count­less others who didn’t per­form or follow orders correctly.


With the DJIA reaching new all-time highs this week, the ques­tion must be asked if the economy is close behind. The evi­dence sug­gests not.

The above chart showed Real Retail Sales adjusted with ShadowStats.com Alter­na­tive CPI index, using 1990 as a base. It is still 23 per­cent below the 2000 peak, and barely off the bottom of the 2008 – 2009 Great Recession.

It’s no wonder that retail has not made a great come­back, con­sid­ering that Jan­uary saw the biggest decrease in per­sonal income since 1993, falling 3.6 per­cent in a single month. Con­sumer spending makes up almost two-thirds of the U.S. economy, so less income ulti­mately means even less spending.

How­ever, in the short term spending has actu­ally increased. This is explained to a cer­tain extent by the fact that the sav­ings rate dropped from 6.4 per­cent in December to only 2.4 per­cent in Jan­uary, meaning that people are using sav­ings to stock up on con­sumer items.

There is a growing per­cep­tion that real estate and stocks will recover together, bringing back the “good old days” seen prior to the 2008 crash. Housing and mort­gage ads are run­ning again on TV and radio. Direct mail is returning, offering all kinds of debt-related offers from cars to houses to appli­ances. Many con­sumers are taking the offers.

One must reason that anyone accepting food stamps from the gov­ern­ment is expe­ri­encing finan­cial dis­tress. Since 2000, as the above chart shows, the number of recip­i­ents has sky­rock­eted, cul­mi­nating 2012 with 47.7 mil­lion in the pro­gram; that is, 14.92 per­cent of the entire U.S. pop­u­la­tion. During Obama’s first four years, there were 11,133 new enrollees every day! In addi­tion, the average monthly food-stamp ben­efit has risen almost 600 per­cent from $21 in 1975 to $132.96 in 2012.

In November 2012, Bre­it­bart reported that the total number of food stamp recip­i­ents, “exceeds the com­bined pop­u­la­tions of: Alaska, Arkansas, Con­necticut, Delaware, Dis­trict of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mis­sis­sippi, Mon­tana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hamp­shire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Okla­homa, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Ver­mont, West Vir­ginia, and Wyoming.”

Wealth inequality in America con­tinues to widen. The bottom 50 per­cent of our pop­u­la­tion own only 2.5 per­cent of our wealth. The wealth­iest 1 per­cent have more com­bined wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

When con­sid­ering the cap­ital infra­struc­ture of Amer­ican man­u­fac­turing and ser­vice indus­tries, it is note­worthy that durable goods orders fell by $9.6 bil­lion or 2.0 per­cent in Jan­uary. This is a sig­nif­i­cantly steeper loss than December 2012, which only declines by 1.3 percent.

So if the economy still stinks, why has the DJIA made it to new high ground? Answer: The Fed­eral Reserve.

Quan­ti­ta­tive Easing has put tril­lions of dol­lars into the finan­cial system since 2008. Where has this money gone? First, it has been sucked up by big banks who have a propen­sity to hoard cash instead of putting it into cir­cu­la­tion. Second, gov­ern­ment spends money on every­thing from defense to highway equip­ment; this money almost always ends up being spent on con­tracts with global cor­po­ra­tions, with little par­tic­i­pa­tion from smaller businesses.

New York Times reported in Jan­uary that “If you’re trying to start a busi­ness today, you can almost forget about going to a bank for financing.” There has been very little trickle-down of actual money to the bottom of the eco­nomic food chain. Estab­lished busi­nesses with a good credit are able to borrow, but gen­er­ally have resisted bor­rowing even at low rates because their expec­ta­tions for future expan­sion are slim to none.

The Fed has thus cre­ated a new bubble that promises to be the “mother of all bub­bles” when it explodes. Remember that it was the Fed’s easy money policy that cre­ated the “dot-com” bubble in 2000. It was the same policy that cre­ated the housing bubble in 2008 – 9.  It is the con­tinued policy that is cre­ating the equi­ties bubble of 2013. Again, here is the pro­gres­sion: dot-com, housing, equities.

The fate of the equi­ties bubble will be the same as the others — they will plunge, pre­cip­i­tating another finan­cial crisis. As big banks burn cap­ital, the Fed will again bail them out as before at the expense of the tax­payer and middle class. The hubris will push another large seg­ment middle-class Amer­i­cans into poverty.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 02/06/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monopoly Banking

The Fed­eral Reserve has run out of ammu­ni­tion. For all the money that the Fed has thrown into our finan­cial system, the economy actu­ally shrunk in the fourth quarter of 2012. Unem­ploy­ment is also ticking up again.

Con­trary to pop­ular belief, the Fed does not have absolute con­trol over interest rates. It often acts in hind­sight, adjusting its internal rates to market forces, and such has been the case during the long term bear market in interest rates. What the Fed does do, how­ever, is dis­lo­cate free mar­kets in order to pro­vide pri­vate money-making oppor­tu­ni­ties to its members.

This is seen in recent years by the blow-up of the sub-prime mort­gage industry and the mul­ti­tril­lion dollar bailout of large finan­cial insti­tu­tions. If the Fed had been absent during this period, these things never would have happened.

The Fed’s actual agenda has been to pro­tect its pri­mary con­stituents — the large U.S. and global banks. It’s feigned atten­tion to the Amer­ican economy, workers and cit­i­zens is a phony as a three-dollar bill. The largest U.S. banks, all of which hold shares in the Fed include,

  • JP Morgan Chase
  • Bank of America
  • Cit­i­group
  • Wells Fargo
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Morgan Stanley

How do you sup­pose they got to be the largest banks in the country? By free-market com­pe­ti­tion? Hardly.

John D. Rock­e­feller, the early patri­arch of the Rock­e­feller for­tune and founder of Stan­dard Oil, was an unabashed monop­o­list who famously stated, “Com­pe­ti­tion is a sin.”

The Rock­e­feller family has con­trolled the Chase-related line of banking since the 1920’s. When Chase Bank merged with Equi­table Trust  (John D. Rock­e­feller, Jr. was the largest share­holder) in 1930, it became the largest bank in the world. It is STILL the largest bank in the U.S. and the ninth largest in the world!

The essence of monopoly cap­i­talism is to always game the system in their favor while dis­crim­i­nating against com­peti­tors. These banks, and espe­cially JPMor­gan­Chase have turned gov­ern­ment manip­u­la­tion into an art form. Communist/Marxist Lenin was the first person to define “state monopoly cap­i­talism” as the suc­cessor to simple monopoly cap­i­talism. According to Marxist theory, state monopoly cap­i­talism is the final his­tor­ical stage of capitalism.

Per­haps this is why the global banks and cor­po­ra­tions are pushing so hard for a new eco­nomic model that they them­selves call a “green economy.” Under the cover of green lies Tech­noc­racy, which I have written about for sev­eral years now.

Interest Rates Headed Up

The long-term bull market in 30 year Trea­suries is over. As bond prices have recently moved lower, we can also say that the bear market in interest rates is over as well — it’s the flip side of the same coin.


The July 2012 low of 2.44 per­cent should stand as the bottom of this entire trend, with rates soon moving above 4 per­cent. Over the next five years, rates should move back up into the 6 – 8 per­cent range.

Someone might say, “Who cares?” Well, elite bankers do not make a market, they only manip­u­late, exac­er­bate, exag­gerate and dis­lo­cate already existing mar­kets. The Fed’s response to rising rates, and the resulting economic/financial effect will be played by the elite banks to fur­ther con­sol­i­date their monop­o­listic posi­tion and max­i­mize their profits. Most of those profits will be at the expense of the middle class and the Amer­ican taxpayer.

When the Fed shuts off the mon­e­tary spigot, and it is a cer­tainty that they will at some time in the next 12 – 18 months, the eco­nomic impact will be imme­di­ately felt. The dollar will rise in value in rela­tion to other cur­ren­cies in the world, defla­tion will increase its grip, gov­ern­ment spending will be cur­tailed, interest rates will rise dra­mat­i­cally, and stocks will fall.

If you were part of this elite, and knew these things were going to happen and when the trigger would be pulled, do you think you could make some money off the news? Of course you could. Buy dol­lars, short stocks and futures, sell long-term bonds, sell real estate, etc. I should men­tion that this is exactly what so-called “smart money” is doing right now — accu­mu­lating dol­lars, dumping stocks, bonds and real estate.

Con­sid­ering the chart above, think about the finan­cial damage that was done to America during a period of falling interest rates. There was the dot com bubble and the first leg of the great bear market starting in 2000. There was the sub-prime melt­down and real estate crash of 2006 onward. The stock market crashed again in 2007 – 2009. Busi­ness and per­sonal bank­rupt­cies soared. Unem­ploy­ment soared. [Note: during the first four years of Obama, some 8.5 mil­lion workers have dropped out of the labor force and are not counted in cur­rent unem­ploy­ment sta­tis­tics.] The national debt, trade deficit and budget deficit are at record levels.

All of this hap­pened with falling interest rates. What do you think will happen when interest rates turn up? Will it bring pros­perity or poverty? I am sad to say, poverty.

As small investors are finally coming back into the stock market, they are investing at a time when insti­tu­tional investors are dumping their stocks. They are buying bonds just when smart money is selling. (see Insiders Bailing on Dow 14000) They are buying homes again with cheap money, often bet­ting on vari­able rate mort­gages because they think interest rates will con­tinue to fall. In short, the middle class public is 180 degrees out of step.

Retire­ment accounts and trust funds that are heavily com­mitted to long-term bonds will be ham­mered as the prin­cipal value of their invest­ments crash. A $1,000 30-year bond yielding 3 per­cent today will be worth only $500 when yields go up to 6 per­cent.  In other words, a dou­bling of the rate cuts your port­folio in half.

Home owners with vari­able rate mort­gages will be “reset” at higher rates, dri­ving their mort­gage pay­ments up. Interest only on a $200,000 mort­gage at 4 per­cent is $8,000 per year. At 6 per­cent, it jumps to $12,000, and at 7 per­cent, it hits $14,000. The result will be the same as it was in 2007 — mass fore­clo­sures and fur­ther real estate deterioration.

It is not a bright pic­ture. Facing the reality of it is worth the time and effort, because you might avoid some very painful mis­takes, and per­haps even profit from it.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 01/23/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Green Eco­nomics

I have been writing for sev­eral years now that the global elite are plan­ning to imple­ment a Technocracy-oriented eco­nomic system that will turn our existing cap­i­tal­istic eco­nomic system upside-down. Why? Because it will be based on ENERGY instead of MONEY.

The Trojan horse that is enabling Tech­noc­racy is “Green Energy.” You already know that green is on the lips of just about every politi­cian in the world. Obama kick-started the con­ver­sion of America’s energy grid into a “Smart Grid” that will con­trol energy con­sump­tion down to the appli­ance level in your home and busi­ness. Public money is reck­lessly thrown down a rabbit hole into green com­pa­nies like Solyndra. Europe is obsessed with green and sus­tain­able development.

In his second inau­gu­ra­tion speech, Obama stated,

“We will respond to the threat of cli­mate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our chil­dren and future gen­er­a­tions.  Some may still deny the over­whelming judg­ment of sci­ence, but none can avoid the dev­as­tating impact of raging fires, and crip­pling drought, and more pow­erful storms.  The path towards sus­tain­able energy sources will be long and some­times dif­fi­cult.  But America cannot resist this tran­si­tion; we must lead it.”

At the annual World Eco­nomic Forum summit meeting cur­rently taking place in Davos, Switzer­land, the first major head­line to be pro­duced is: Davos call for $14 tril­lion ‘greening’ of global economy. This is an amount larger than the entire global economy. The orga­ni­za­tion behind the pro­nounce­ment is the Green Growth Action Alliance. Who are they and who belongs to it?

The Green Growth Action Alliance was com­mis­sioned at last year’s Davos meeting, and is headed by former Mex­ican pres­i­dent Felipe Calderon. Alliance global banking mem­bers include: Bank of America Mer­rill Lynch, Bar­clays Cap­ital, Deutsche Bank Group, Euro­pean Bank for Recon­struc­tion and Devel­op­ment, Euro­pean Invest­ment Bank, Grupo Financiero Banorte, HSBC, Inter-American Devel­op­ment Bank, Morgan Stanley, World Bank Group. Other industry mem­bers include: Accen­ture, Alcatel-Lucent, Applied Mate­rials, Envi­ron­mental Defense Fund, GE Energy, Infosys, McK­insey & Com­pany, Sam­sung Elec­tronics Com­pany, Siemens, World Trade Organization.

This is a “who’s who” list of global giants. They, among other global movers and shakers, are col­lec­tively screaming for the world to turn “green”, all of it pred­i­cated on the unproven theory called Global Warming.

Given that the sci­ence behind global warming is rid­dled with fraud­u­lent data and pre­de­ter­mined “studies” skewed by grants from these same orga­ni­za­tions, what is the real agenda behind all this hoopla?


The doc­trine of Tech­noc­racy was first for­mal­ized in the 1930’s by M. King Hub­bard at Columbia Uni­ver­sity, who later pro­posed the “Peak Oil Theory”, or Hubbard’s Peak. It sought to bal­ance con­sump­tion with pro­duc­tion based on an energy for­mula instead of supply-and-demand eco­nomics. Money would be dis­carded for energy credits. Society would be run by enlight­ened and unelected sci­en­tists and engi­neers (gov­er­nance), replacing rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ments. There would be no pri­vate prop­erty or ability to accu­mu­late wealth. People would be herded, man­aged and directed like cattle in a feed lot.

Hub­bard, et al, believed that tech­nology had caused an organic change in society, which could only then be run by the tech­no­log­ical experts. They viewed politi­cians as igno­rant and even dan­gerous, unable to under­stand the tech­nology they were sup­posed to manage.

This elite thinking has per­sisted, not only in halls of acad­emia, but in the indus­trial world where tech­nology and man­agerism already reigns. At the core of this elitist phi­los­ophy is Sci­en­tism, and I offer the fol­lowing definition.

Sci­en­tism: An exten­sion of Pos­i­tivism based on a mix­ture of pseudo-science and empir­ical sci­ence that states that sci­ence alone, with its self-selected priest­hood of engi­neers and sci­en­tists, is the only source of truth about the nature of man, the phys­ical world and uni­versal reality. By def­i­n­i­tion it rejects the exis­tence of God and all notions of divine truth as is found in the Bible.

A caveat is nec­es­sary. All sci­en­tists are not accused of Sci­en­tism. There are plenty (if not a majority) of sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who accept the notion of divine and/or absolute truth out­side of sci­ence. Unfor­tu­nately, these are looked upon as heretics by adher­ents to Sci­en­tism, and are largely ignored. For instance, 31,000 sci­en­tists signed a peti­tion that rejects the pseudo-science of global warming, but this has not deterred the Al Gores’ of the world, including Obama, from mar­keting global warming as if it were a sci­en­tific fact!

If Tech­noc­racy is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the eco­nomic system, then its Siamese twin is Tran­shu­manism, which is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the con­di­tion of man in order to achieve char­ac­ter­is­tics of immor­tality, omni­science and omnipres­ence, among others, and to pro­duce a God-like race of post-humans.

Because of the vocal rise of Tran­shu­manism, you now rou­tinely hear calls that immor­tality for humans is just around the corner, as is the case with Ray Kurzweil. Per­haps you missed the Time Mag­a­zine cover from Feb­ruary 21, 2011 issue pic­tured at the left.

Do you think this is all benev­o­lent and benign? Think again. The reli­gious evil that runs below the sur­face of any­thing con­nected to Sci­en­tism is of the greatest mag­ni­tude. It’s a dan­gerous phi­los­ophy for mankind in gen­eral, and espe­cially to Bible-believing Chris­tians in par­tic­ular, because its adher­ents see them­selves as gods, far above mere mor­tals of the une­d­u­cated classes.

For instance, a leading tran­shuman, cloning researcher and nuclear physi­cist, Dr. Richard Seed, stated point­edly in an inter­view for a doc­u­men­tary: “We are going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off. You don’t have to con­tribute, you don’t have to par­tic­i­pate. But if you’re going to inter­fere with ME becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble; we’ll have war­fare. The only way to pre­vent me is to kill me. And you kill me, I’ll kill you.” [Dr. Richard Seed, Nuclear physi­cist and cloning researcher. Tech­no­ca­lyps, Part II — Preparing for the Sin­gu­larity]. Yes, he said that; If you don’t believe it, go listen to the entire doc­u­men­tary. [https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/technocalyps-pt.-2-preparing/id490742472]

Where is this leading? Sci­en­tism, Tech­noc­racy and Tran­shu­manism are headed straight into a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship: That is, the utopian con­cept of sci­en­tific man­agerism whereby all facets of polit­ical, social and eco­nomic life are man­aged solely by the sci­en­tific method and dic­tates of sci­ence. If unchecked, it will put mankind back into the dark ages of a feudal society where a few own every­thing and have all the priv­i­leges while the rest own nothing and have zero privileges.

Fur­ther­more, all of this is coming at us like an express train. Is any­body else paying atten­tion? Appar­ently not, for I am still the only one harping on this week after week and month after month.

You are wel­come to share this article with anyone who might want to see beyond the cha­rade of modern global pol­i­tics and sci­en­tific psycho-babble.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.



VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 01/16/2013

Tags: , , , , , ,

Gun Con­trol: What Obama Should Have Said

First, Obama should have sur­rounded him­self with pic­tures of the chil­dren who have died at the hands of madmen Marxist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin and others. His­tory is lit­tered with them, both crazed rulers and dead children.

Sec­ondly, Obama should have recited the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, the Bill of Rights and the Con­sti­tu­tion, and recom­mitted his admin­is­tra­tion to fol­lowing the the Con­sti­tu­tion and the rule of law.

Thirdly, he should have said “Never again will chil­dren such as these be slaugh­tered because they, or their par­ents, were unable to defend them­selves against a tyran­nical gov­ern­ment or any other person bent on their destruction.”

Fourthly, he should have said, “The brain­washing and twisting of our children’s minds must stop! Hence­forth, I am calling for a ces­sa­tion of vio­lence in movies, tele­vi­sion and video games that are twisting young minds.”

Fifthly, he should have said, “I put every vio­lent crim­inal in our nation on notice — you killers, rob­bers, thugs, bur­glars and rapists — that every law-abiding cit­izen in this nation is hereby given the right to self-defense by what­ever means they choose, including firearms of any type. I hereby encourage every cit­izen of our nation to become respon­sibly armed, to take self-defense and safety training to learn how to use your weapons effec­tively and safely, and to pro­tect your family and other inno­cents in your sphere of influence. The era of crim­inal vio­lence in America is over!”

How­ever, the pres­i­dent can say none of this because his admin­is­tra­tion is already an adver­sary of the people. People can debate Marxism as a phi­los­ophy as long as they want, but when it comes down to prac­tice, Marxism has always pro­duced a mur­derous dic­tator in the end… and Obama appears to be headed that way, and if not Obama, then some future pres­i­dent who picks up where he will leave off.

The public hys­teria sur­rounding the gun con­trol issue is simply amazing. I heard one female politi­cian state that we have to do away with guns that can hold “hun­dreds of bul­lets.” Yet, there is no such weapon in America.

The irra­tional claim, even by mil­i­tary offi­cials, that “We don’t need weapons in America that are used only in war zones” is equally ridicu­lous. All of the AR-style rifles in America are semi-automatic, meaning that you must pull the trigger each time to fire a round. By con­trast, all AR-style weapons car­ried by mil­i­tary troops are fully auto­matic, meaning you pull and hold the trigger to empty the entire mag­a­zine. Fur­ther­more, the mil­i­tary car­ries armor piercing ammu­ni­tion that is illegal for civilian ownership.

Oth­er­wise, a civilian AR-style rifle is no dif­ferent than any other rifle — one trigger-pull equals one round fired. If you have ever seen how fast (under one second) one can switch mag­a­zines you would know that it doesn’t matter if that mag­a­zine holds 5, 20 or 50 rounds.

Now that “assault rifles” are thor­oughly dis­cred­ited and thrashed by the pres­i­dent and the vig­i­lante mob of gun-haters, what will happen when they wake up and realize that 98 per­cent of all deaths-by-firearm are caused by hand­guns and NOT rifles of any sort?

That’s right, the rhetoric will re-focus and the drive will be on to outlaw semi-automatic pis­tols and revolvers.

And this gets us down to the real crux of the matter: The state wants all the guns — pis­tols, revolvers, rifles, shot­guns, all cal­ibers, all ammu­ni­tion, etc.

An unarmed cit­i­zenry is unable to resist a tyran­nical gov­ern­ment and thus is no threat to it.

The Hidden Prize: National gun owner registry

The pre­con­di­tion to out­right gun con­fis­ca­tion is a uni­fied and com­pre­hen­sive national gun owner and gun-owned reg­istry. By requiring the owner and receiver of all trans­fers of any weapon to be reg­is­tered, the existing data­base will swell to hun­dreds of mil­lions within a few years.

Until 1968, there was no require­ment nor reg­is­tra­tion for gun own­er­ship. There­after, suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tions ramped up data col­lec­tion pro­ce­dures and cre­ated sophis­ti­cated data­bases on gun owners. How­ever, guns owned prior to 1968 have not been reg­is­tered, nor have pri­vate sales or inter-family gifts; many col­lec­tions of unreg­is­tered firearms have been qui­etly passed to heirs upon death of a parent or close relative.

There are no accu­rate sta­tis­tics on how many gun owners reside in the U.S., nor on the total quan­tity of guns owned. A Gallup poll from 2010 showed that 47 per­cent of American’s admitted to owning a firearm, but experts con­cluded that the actual per­centage might be as high as 60 percent.

Sta­tis­ti­cians believe that there are between 240 and 280 mil­lion firearms in America, but that cannot accu­rately include pre-1968 pur­chases so the figure could be con­sid­er­ably higher. Most gun owners whom I have met typ­i­cally have at least 2 firearms, and many have several.

A national reg­istry data­base would thus cover at least 150 mil­lion people and 300 mil­lion firearms — with all the “trim­mings” like pho­to­graph, fin­ger­prints, ques­tion­naires and other per­sonal information.

Mean­while, Obama has ordered other Fed­eral agen­cies to pro­vide com­pli­men­tary data to the FBI as these data­bases are built. Med­ical per­sonnel will be expected to submit psycho-graphic analysis. Finan­cial his­tory, crim­inal his­tory, med­ical his­tory, social his­tory, etc., etc., will be com­bined. Soft­ware algo­rithms will then ana­lyze the pro­files for “red flags.” Pre­dictability soft­ware will deter­mine which people are most likely to cause trouble in the future.

Any sol­dier who has been diag­nosed with PTSD (Post Trau­matic Stress Dis­order) will be auto­mat­i­cally banned from owning or pos­sessing a firearm. That amounts to as much as 16 per­cent of all veterans.

Have you ever taken drugs for depres­sion or anx­iety? That could be a trou­bling warning sign that you are unfit to own a firearm.

Thus, once all this data is in place, future back­ground checks take on a whole new look. Just as the TSA’s “No Fly” data­base yields very unpre­dictable results, so too will the gun owner’s database.

The final con­sid­er­a­tion is that if, as and when out­right gun con­fis­ca­tion becomes a reality, the Feds will know exactly who to call on with a spe­cific list of your guns in hand.

Tech­noc­racy implemented

Two of the early require­ments listed for the cre­ation of a Tech­no­cratic society were

  • “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
  • “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Course, p. 232]

Gun con­trol mania offers the per­fect crisis to imple­ment just such a system.

New bat­tles start

States are threat­ening leg­is­la­tion that will block fed­eral man­dates on gun con­trol. They will likely fail, even if they take their cases to the Supreme Court.

One con­sumer group, Freedom Watch, just released news of their lawsuit:

The con­ser­v­a­tive group Free­domWatch is suing the White House task force that led to the gun con­trol pro­posals offered by Pres­i­dent Barack Obama Wednesday.

FreedomWatch’s suit is based on the argu­ment that the White House group con­ducted illegal meet­ings with lob­by­ists without public notice that’s required. The suit, which was filed in Florida fed­eral court, seeks to elim­i­nate the task force and pre­vent any of its pro­posals from becoming law, The Hill reports.

The 1972 Fed­eral Advi­sory Com­mittee Act requires pres­i­den­tial task forces that include non-federal gov­ern­ment offi­cials to meet in public and pub­lish notice of meet­ings in the Fed­eral Reg­ister 15 days ahead of time.

“Pres­i­dent Obama and Vice Pres­i­dent Biden have thumbed their nose at the law and instead been holding closed door meet­ings with spe­cial interest lob­by­ists on both sides of the issue,” Free­domWatch founder Larry Klayman said in a written state­ment. “The Amer­ican people, whose rights to gun own­er­ship stem from colo­nial times and are enshrined in the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, are being ille­gally shut out of the process.”

The twists and turns that lie ahead will be cer­tain to inflame already over­heated tem­pers between the polit­ical par­ties and their respec­tive constituents.


A good per­centage of F&F readers will dis­agree with my analysis. That’s your right, to be sure. How­ever, if you have not read America’s founding doc­u­ments (Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, Bill of Rights, Con­sti­tu­tion), and are unaware of the polit­ical his­tory our nation and of applied Marxism, then you have little to con­tribute to this debate. If you are simply under-informed, I encourage you start reading and learning today — your future is at stake. If you are will­fully unin­formed, then I sug­gest you are part of the problem, not the solution.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 01/02/2013

Tags: , , , , , ,


Obama rolled the Repub­lican party and the polit­ical damage inflicted may be irre­versible. In his nation­wide speech on New Year’s Eve, Obama called for a “fair and bal­anced” approach to solve the fiscal cliff, using that exact phrase sev­eral times. The press was sub­se­quently fed the “fair and bal­anced” talking points as the sin­gular char­ac­ter­istic of the Obama Administration.

The final bill, which included only tax increases and no cuts in spending, actu­ally added $330 bil­lion in spending over the next 10 years, and ensures an increase of $4 tril­lion to the fed­eral deficit.

After hearing of the bill’s pas­sage, Obama stated,

“Today’s agree­ment enshrines, I think, a prin­ciple into law that will remain in place as long as I am Pres­i­dent: The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that’s bal­anced. Everyone pays their fair share. Everyone does their part. That’s how our economy works best. That’s how we grow.”

Wel­come to Obama’s “bal­anced approach”: Dou­ble­think at its best.

For every dollar spent by gov­ern­ment, an off­set­ting dollar is crowded out of the pro­duc­tive economy. While Obama stead­fastly refuses to cut gov­ern­ment spending, his new mantra of “we can’t cut our way to pros­perity” is the polar oppo­site of what needs to happen, namely, shrink the gov­ern­ment so that the economy can expand. As long as gov­ern­ment grows, the economy will shrink.

In short, nothing has been solved. Obama and his spend-crazy Admin­is­tra­tion are not restrained in the least and the dividing lines between Democ­rats, Repub­li­cans and con­ser­v­a­tives are more vit­ri­olic than ever.

This writer expects that the credit rating agen­cies will be inclined to fur­ther down­grade U.S. debt, based on a) expanding debt to GDP ratio, b) con­gres­sional grid­lock and inability to achieve a rea­son­able con­sensus and c) increasing budget deficits.

Tran­shu­manism and Immortality

As dis­cussed before in these pages, Tech­noc­racy and Tran­shu­manism are Siamese twins joined at a scientific/metaphysical nexus to deter­mine the future of mankind. Prac­ti­tioners of these philoso­phies shroud their meta­phys­ical belief sys­tems with tra­di­tional sci­ence in order to a) avoid intel­lec­tual scrutiny and b) give legit­i­macy to oth­er­wise purely mystic concepts.

While Tech­noc­racy addresses evolving eco­nomic and polit­ical sys­tems required for the con­trol of the humans on our planet, tran­shu­manism is con­cerned with human enhance­ment up to and including achieving immor­tality. In this realm, sci­ence and fan­tasy are often indistinguishable.

For what fol­lows below, I strongly rec­om­mend viewing this infor­ma­tive BBC doc­u­men­tary on the Russian space pro­gram: Knocking on Heaven’s Door.

The father of the Russian space pro­gram was Kon­stantin Tsi­olkovsky (1857 – 1935), a bril­liant sci­en­tist who was driven by the philoso­phies of another Russian, Nikolai Fedorov (1828 – 1903).

According to tran­shu­manist Guilio Prisco*,

“Fedorov sug­gested that sci­ence was a tool given to us by God to enable us to res­ur­rect the dead and, as promised, enjoy immortal life. He added that because the Earth could not sus­tain a pop­u­la­tion that never died, we must first learn to con­quer space. His ideas about human evo­lu­tion, and in par­tic­ular the idea that humans should take con­trol of the process and direct it towards their own goals, inspired gen­er­a­tions of Russian sci­en­tists and led directly to con­tem­po­rary tran­shu­manism. [emphasis added]

Federov believed that the only evil in the world was death, and there­fore it must be con­quered. How­ever, he had not only cur­rent and future inhab­i­tants of the world in mind, but also all humans who have ever lived. If sci­ence could pull it off, having all those humans walking the earth would neces­si­tate the col­o­niza­tion of the uni­verse — to spread us out, so to speak.

The Russian space pro­gram, with its suc­cesses and fail­ures, sparked the USSR/U.S. space race that gave legit­i­macy to the cre­ation and expan­sion of NASA in the U.S. The out­ward con­cern over the space race was mil­i­tary in nature: Who would rain down nuclear mis­siles on whom? The evi­dence is to the con­trary how­ever — the race was to be first to col­o­nize the uni­verse and to dis­cover other life forms who had already achieved god status (immortality).

Some have sug­gested that the space “race” aspect was fab­ri­cated by sci­en­tists to stim­u­late mas­sive funding into their metaphysical/scientific schemes. There is more than a little evi­dence to sup­port this theory, including NASA’s vocal search for extrater­res­trial life on other planets in the universe.

For instance, The New York Times reported in its Sci­ence sec­tion in 2002,

“The pur­suit of that ancient heav­enly con­nec­tion has lately moved near center stage at NASA, which assem­bled some 100 astronomers, physi­cists, chemists, geol­o­gists and even a few biol­o­gists at the Space Tele­scope Sci­ence Insti­tute on the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity campus recently to talk about extrater­res­trial life.

“In dis­cus­sions on topics like the vagaries of inter­stellar weather and the reflec­tive prop­er­ties of veg­e­ta­tion, they debated the nature and his­tory of life on Earth, which parts of the galaxy were suit­able for life and laid plans for a gen­er­a­tion of space­craft that will prospect the cosmos for planets, sifting pin­points of light for the sig­na­tures of life as humans know or can imagine it.” [emphasis added]

Philo­soph­i­cally speaking, this is a direct takeoff on Tsiolkovsky’s and Federov’s quest from 70 years earlier.

Tran­shu­mans today con­tinue their march toward immor­tality through so-called “con­ver­gence” of tech­nolo­gies such as NBIC (Nano-Bio-Info-Congnitive) ini­tia­tives at major uni­ver­si­ties all around the world. In the Internet uni­verse, inventor and out­spoken tran­shuman Ray Kurzweil has teamed up with Google.com to create new tech­nolo­gies that will usher in Kurzweil’s pre­dicted Sin­gu­larity in 2045 or there­abouts, which may coin­cide with the achieve­ment of immor­tality. (Inci­den­tally, Kurzweil’s main goal in life is to res­ur­rect his father!)

To the average person, what I have written above may seem too sur­real to com­pre­hend, but I strongly sug­gest that you slog through it anyway. Sci­ence and reli­gion (mystic/metaphysical) are con­verging to create the most pow­erful hege­mony over man that the earth has ever seen. Fur­ther­more, it is being funded almost exclu­sively by unsus­pecting tax­payers around the world.

[* Giulio Prisco is a physi­cist and com­puter sci­en­tist, and former senior man­ager in the Euro­pean space admin­is­tra­tion. Giulio works as a con­sul­tant and con­tributes to sev­eral sci­ence and tech­nology mag­a­zines. In 2002 – 2008 he served on the Board of Direc­tors of Humanity Plus, of which he was Exec­u­tive Director, and serves on the Board of Direc­tors of the Italian Tran­shu­manist Asso­ci­a­tion.] — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 10/24/2012

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Tech­noc­racy and the IMF: New Global Mon­e­tary System?

Beware of a new trial bal­loon being floated by the Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, that is, “The Chicago Plan Revis­ited.”

According to British jour­nalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,

The con­juring trick is to replace our system of pri­vate bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the his­tor­ical norm, before Charles II placed con­trol of the money supply in pri­vate hands with the Eng­lish Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specif­i­cally, it means an assault on “frac­tional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exor­bi­tant priv­i­lege of cre­ating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sov­er­eign con­trol over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles. [Emphasis added]

At a time when some ivory-tower econ­o­mists are pre­dicting the end of cap­i­talism, any talk of mon­e­tary reform by global banking orga­ni­za­tions is worthy of atten­tion, if not alarm. The IMF has been one of the pri­mary engines of glob­al­iza­tion, having worked in con­junc­tion with the World Bank and the Bank for Inter­na­tional Set­tle­ments for decades.

The IMF has now dug up the so-called “Chicago Plan” from the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago dating back to 1936, and is seri­ously studying it for modern application.

Beware. As Patrick Henry once stated, “I smell a rat.”

First, the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago was orig­i­nally cre­ated with a grant from John D. Rock­e­feller in 1890, and has long been an aca­d­emic vassal of Rock­e­feller inter­ests. In 1936 during the heat of the Great Depres­sion, leading econ­o­mists were looking for alter­na­tives to cap­i­talism and mon­e­tary theory. Tech­noc­racy, for instance, was one attempt to sug­gest an alter­na­tive eco­nomic system, during the same time period. Nei­ther Tech­noc­racy nor the Chicago Plan were suc­cessful at the time.

According to the IMF’s study,

“The decade fol­lowing the onset of the Great Depres­sion was a time of great intel­lec­tual fer­ment in eco­nomics, as the leading thinkers of the time tried to under­stand the apparent fail­ures of the existing eco­nomic system. This intel­lec­tual struggle extended to many domains, but arguably the most impor­tant was the field of mon­e­tary eco­nomics, given the key roles of pri­vate bank behavior and of cen­tral bank poli­cies in trig­gering and pro­longing the crisis.

“During this time a large number of leading U.S. macro­econ­o­mists sup­ported a fun­da­mental pro­posal for mon­e­tary reform that later became known as the Chicago Plan, after its strongest pro­po­nent, pro­fessor Henry Simons of the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago. It was also sup­ported, and bril­liantly sum­ma­rized, by Irving Fisher of Yale Uni­ver­sity, in Fisher (1936). The key fea­ture of this plan was that it called for the sep­a­ra­tion of the mon­e­tary and credit func­tions of the banking system, first by requiring 100% backing of deposits by government-issued money, and second by ensuring that the financing of new bank credit can only take place through earn­ings that have been retained in the form of government-issued money, or through the bor­rowing of existing government-issued money from non-banks, but not through the cre­ation of new deposits, ex nihilo, by banks.” [Emphasis added.]

I have long argued that the Fed­eral Reserve Bank, estab­lished in 1913, is a pri­vate cor­po­ra­tion whose pri­vate stock­holders were the major banks of that time period. The Fed was a super-lobby that would work directly with gov­ern­ment to orches­trate lending and col­lecting on an orderly basis. At that time, the banks did not “own” the var­ious nations of the world, so they could not sum­marily dic­tate public policy.

The Frac­tional Reserve system that cur­rently spans the globe was never intended to be a per­ma­nent solu­tion to wealth dom­i­na­tion. By def­i­n­i­tion from the start, the lenders would even­tu­ally wind up owning every­thing (all the resources) in society, and the frac­tional banking system would become obsolete.

The IMF is sug­gesting that the day of the Cen­tral Bank (the Fed included) may be over, and that the power of cur­rency cre­ation and issuance should instead be given to the state. This would lit­er­ally pull the rug out from under all the cen­tral banks of the world, requiring their untimely disbandment.

But, so what? Corporation’s change strategy all the time. If the cen­tral banks are essen­tially a ser­vice provider to their major con­stituent banks, then they will be useful only as long as they can pro­vide a ben­e­fi­cial ser­vice; there­after, they are discardable.

The orig­inal Chicago Plan and the Chicago Plan Revis­ited make no ref­er­ence to the eco­nomic system of Tech­noc­racy (also from the 1930’s) or the use of Energy Credits as cur­rency. How­ever, during the 1930’s and beyond, the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago has been a hotbed of Technocracy.

For instance, Pro­fessor Patricio Silva wrote In the Name of Reason: Tech­nocrats and Pol­i­tics in Chile that the so-called “Chicago boys” (Chilean econ­o­mists edu­cated at the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago) brought Tech­noc­racy to Chile where it sur­vived sev­eral changes of polit­ical power.

The “Chicago Boys” were edu­cated by Milton Friedman and Arnold Har­berger as the result of a State Depart­ment ini­tia­tive called the “Chile Project” that was orga­nized in the 1950’s and finan­cially spon­sored by the Ford Foundation.

Thus, I will sug­gest that the IMF’s new plan could be an impor­tant and nec­es­sary stepping-stone toward tying the issuance of cur­rency to energy policy instead of eco­nomic policy.

This link is not trivial. A state that arbi­trarily deter­mines the nec­es­sary level of cur­rency required to make its economy work must have some form of linkage to a non-political and more stable touch­stone. For many years, gold was such a touchstone.

While gold is not in the imme­diate pic­ture for mon­e­tary policy, energy is!

The United Nations has been pushing hard for a new global “Green Economy” that would replace the cur­rent “brown economy” based on fossil fuel and over-consumption in devel­oped nations.

“A green economy implies the decou­pling of resource use and envi­ron­mental impacts from eco­nomic growth… These invest­ments, both public and pri­vate, pro­vide the mech­a­nism for the recon­fig­u­ra­tion of busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions, and for the adop­tion of sus­tain­able con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion processes.” [Emerging policy issues, UNEP, 2010, p. 2] [Emphasis added]

If mon­e­tary cre­ation is handed back to the state, the above “decou­pling” could easily become a reality. Con­versely, as long as the cen­tral bank system imposes a frac­tional reserve system on global mon­e­tary policy, it cannot become a reality.

Again I say, Beware! The argu­ments for scrap­ping the Fed will sound appealing to everyone: no more boom/bust cycles, no more bankster rip-offs, etc. Just remember that the global elite do not exer­cise influ­ence in order to ben­efit anyone except themselves.

In this writer’s con­sid­ered opinion, the next phase of global dom­i­na­tion will focus on the direct con­trol of resources, rather than indi­rect own­er­ship via debt-based money.

Defla­tion vs. Spending

An economy grows when spending occurs for goods and ser­vices. There are three gen­eral sources of spending: Per­sonal, busi­ness and government.

Since I have been talking about credit defla­tion for sev­eral years now, it is worth noting again that the only escape from defla­tion is spending. When spending caves in, the economy caves in with it.

Since Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was appointed by George Bush on Feb­ruary 1, 2006,  his pri­mary nemesis has been defla­tion, not infla­tion. As the credit melt­down pro­gressed, con­sumer and busi­ness spending fled, leaving gov­ern­ment spending the only pos­sible source of rescue. This became painfully obvious as lending/borrowing activity did not pick up after interest rates were dropped to almost zero.

Thus, the var­ious stim­ulus and Quan­ti­ta­tive Easing pro­grams were directed to get the gov­ern­ment to spend, and hence, we now have a $16 tril­lion national debt and vir­tu­ally nothing to show for it. The economy has not recov­ered, jobs have not returned and global sen­ti­ment has rad­i­cally shifted to a policy of fiscal austerity.

Since 2007, the Amer­ican con­sumer has been limping along while slowly descending into the eco­nomic abyss. Wages are down, unem­ploy­ment is higher and banks aren’t lending. People are trying to spin the real estate market uptick as some kind of bottom, but the activity is more like oxygen-starved koi sucking for air in a stag­nant pond.

The fol­lowing excerpt from the October 2012 McAl­vany Intel­li­gence Advisor) aptly describes the state of the average consumer:

…con­sumers are in the worst finan­cial shape they’ve been in since the Great Depres­sion. One recent report showed that credit card bal­ances for the indebted (people who carry a bal­ance each month) have dropped nearly $2,000, from $16,383 in March 2010 to $14,517 in March 2012. This sounds like Amer­i­cans are finally get­ting a grip on their finances. Hardly. If you look at credit card debt for all house­holds, the average has only dropped from $7,219 to $6,772.

That’s not the worst news, though. The reason for the decrease is not that Amer­i­cans are paying off their debt. Tim Chen wrote on Forbes.com (5/30/2012): “The reality of the sit­u­a­tion is much grimmer. In 2010, credit card com­pa­nies wrote off seri­ously delin­quent debts, declaring a huge chunk of money uncol­lec­table. America’s credit card debt dropped. The charge-off rate, which is the per­centage of dol­lars that have been clas­si­fied uncol­lectible, jumped to 10.7% — a 300% increase from 2006.

“After losing a gar­gan­tuan number of pay­ments, credit card com­pa­nies began to exer­cise shrewder dis­cern­ment in issuing finan­cial prod­ucts. With credit cards more dif­fi­cult to obtain, average debt con­tinued to fall.

“So, no. A decrease in credit card debt does not indi­cate height­ened finan­cial lit­eracy, a recov­ering job market, or smarter spending habits. It means the sit­u­a­tion was beyond repair and required an arti­fi­cial reduction.”

The truth of the matter is that the Amer­ican con­sumer is com­pletely tapped out on credit. This was true before the housing crunch, as most home­owners used the equity in their home as a piggy bank to main­tain bloated lifestyles. When home prices dropped, they went under­water in a hurry. [Emphasis added]

So, do the math. Con­sumer spending is not recov­ering. Gov­ern­ment spending will shift due to inter­na­tional and internal demands for aus­terity. Busi­nesses are already cur­tailing spending on cap­ital goods and ser­vices. Who is left to spend? No one.

This is where we stand as of today. On the first of Jan­uary, how­ever, the employed uni­verse of workers are going to see sig­nif­i­cantly higher taxes taken from their pay­checks, thanks to the sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001.

A family with a $100,000 income will lose about $3,000, or 3 per­cent, of their spend­able income. Con­sid­ering how tight bud­gets are already, that $3,000 loss rep­re­sents a dis­pro­por­tionate per­centage of dis­cre­tionary spending… and it’s going to be painful to many households.

Thus, the spiral down into defla­tion continues.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Findings & Forecasts 10/03/2012

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Cal­i­fornia is usu­ally the state that leads the nation in social, eco­nomic and polit­ical trends, and that’s why it deserves to be watched so closely. Munic­ipal bank­rupt­cies in Stockton, San Bernardino and Mam­moth Lakes, for instance, led Moody’s to con­clude in August, “more bank­ruptcy fil­ings and bond defaults among Cal­i­fornia cities, reflecting the increased risk to bond­holders as investors are asked to con­tribute to plans for closing budget gaps.” Munic­i­pal­i­ties across the nation are in under the same kind of duress.

The above table, from the IAR Inland Empire Report on Busi­ness for Sep­tember, is an eye opener. The Inland Empire is rep­re­sented by San Bernardino and River­side coun­ties, and is one of the most impor­tant eco­nomic areas in the state. Note that num­bers above 50 rep­re­sent expan­sion and those below 50 indi­cate contraction.

Local PMI, or Pur­chasing Manager’s Index, went from increasing in August to sharp neg­a­tive con­trac­tion in Sep­tember. Pro­duc­tion, also increasing in August, plunged from 55.0 to 37.5 in Sep­tember. New Orders also plunged, as did exports.

Employ­ment had increased in August, but went seri­ously neg­a­tive in Sep­tember by drop­ping to 44.6 from 52.

Granted that the Inland Empire is a very small slice of America as a whole, but as a leading indi­cator, it is falling off the cliff. Even if August had been an encour­aging sign of recovery, Sep­tember was slammed back into recession.

The PMI chart shows the decline starting in April 2012 — it has fallen like a rock with only two upward blips along the way. Is this a pic­ture of eco­nomic recovery? Hardly. In fact, these kinds of num­bers defy the national pic­ture pre­sented by the Fed­eral government.

The global economy is doing no better. Europe is now offi­cially back into reces­sion, with the only notable excep­tion being Ger­many. Euro­zone unem­ploy­ment has reached a record high of 11.4 per­cent, but dig­ging deeper reveals a dis­turbing pic­ture. Youth unem­ploy­ment in the EU is 22.8 per­cent. Overall unem­ploy­ment in Spain is 25.1 per­cent, but 52.9 per­cent of youth 25 or under are out of work.

France’s latest PMI chart is notice­ably sim­ilar to the Inland Empire except that the most recent peak occurred about 9 months earlier.

France’s newly-elected prime min­ister François Hol­lande, a rad­ical socialist, has led the country in the oppo­site direc­tion of recovery by imple­menting severe aus­terity pro­grams (dic­tated by the EU itself) while simul­ta­ne­ously increasing taxes. The policy is already having dis­as­trous effects.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote in The Tele­graph on Sunday, “Another domino falls as Hol­lande pushes France into depression”,

“Data col­lected by Simon Ward at Hen­derson Global Investors shows that a key leading indi­cator of the money supply –‘six-month real M1 money’ — is now con­tracting even faster in France than in Spain. The shock will hit over the winter.” [emphasis added]

Whether Hol­lande under­stands defla­tion is unknown, but he is playing right into its hands. Ambrose concludes,

France now joins Italy, Spain, Por­tugal, Greece, Ire­land, and parts of Eastern Europe in syn­chro­nized tight­ening, with the Nether­lands and Bel­gium cut­ting too, all drag­ging each other down in a 1930s slide into the polit­ical swamp.”

Whether one looks at Europe or the U.S., the edge of the eco­nomic abyss is the same, and both are headed that way. There are no gov­ern­ment poli­cies that can reverse or fore­stall the journey.

The Fed’s QE3 pro­gram of pur­chasing $40 bil­lion in Trea­suries per month has nothing to do with eco­nomic recovery or cre­ating jobs: It is a panic move to stave off mon­e­tary defla­tion which is already underway. This move is des­tined to fail just like all pre­vious attempts have failed: The banksters will avoid insol­vency but few others will see any cash.


Those of us who voiced con­cerns and crit­i­cism over the Depart­ment of Home­land Security/FBI imple­men­ta­tion of so-called Fusion Cen­ters around the U.S., were rou­tinely dis­missed as alarmists and irrel­e­vant. Now the chickens have come home to roost with national head­lines over the scan­dalous results pro­duced by these uncon­sti­tu­tional spy centers.

The reason it hit the news is due to a damning report issued by the Senate Home­land Secu­rity and Gov­ern­mental Affairs that declares in its Exec­u­tive Sum­mary on page one,

“Sharing terrorism-related infor­ma­tion between state, local and fed­eral offi­cials is cru­cial to pro­tecting the United States from another ter­rorist attack. Achieving this objec­tive was the moti­va­tion for Con­gress and the White House to invest hun­dreds of mil­lions of tax­payer dol­lars over the last nine years in sup­port of dozens of state and local fusion cen­ters across the United States. Con­gress directed the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity (DHS) to lead this ini­tia­tive. A bipar­tisan inves­ti­ga­tion by the Per­ma­nent Sub­com­mittee on Inves­ti­ga­tions has found, how­ever, that DHS’ work with those state and local fusion cen­ters has not pro­duced useful intel­li­gence to sup­port fed­eral coun­tert­er­rorism efforts.

“The Sub­com­mittee inves­ti­ga­tion found that DHS-assigned detailees to the fusion cen­ters for­warded “intel­li­gence” of uneven quality – often­times shoddy, rarely timely, some­times endan­gering cit­i­zens’ civil lib­er­ties and Pri­vacy Act pro­tec­tions, occa­sion­ally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unre­lated to ter­rorism.” [emphasis added]

Starting in 2003, DHS has cre­ated 73 Fusion Cen­ters in the U.S., but actual loca­tions in each state were kept secret until early 2011. Cen­ters were to com­bine Fed­eral and local law enforce­ment resources along with pri­vate par­ties involved in public infra­struc­ture, in order to suck data from every pos­sible local source for com­put­er­ized analysis.

What­ever Con­gress had in mind, it was NOT what DHS pro­ceeded to do, namely, create a behe­moth cit­izen spying exper­i­ment that was run without over­sight and a vir­tu­ally unlim­ited budget. DHS cannot recon­struct how much money they actu­ally spent, where it was spent and to whom it was given, but it is esti­mated to be a multi­bil­lion dollar boondoggle.

The gist of “data fusion” is this: Take data from many diverse areas and data­bases, com­bine it into a single data­base (the “fusion” process) and then apply heuristic (arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence) pro­gram algo­rithms that infer who the bad guys might be. The problem is that it doesn’t work and ordi­nary, inno­cent cit­i­zens are easily pegged for being “sus­pi­cious” and then watched for crim­inal behavior.

While Fusion Cen­ters failed Con­gress, they have not failed the Tech­nocrats within DHS. Tech­niques and tech­nology for data col­lec­tion and com­puter analysis have advanced by leaps and bounds and are now ready for prime-time imple­men­ta­tion on a more com­pre­hen­sive nation­wide basis.

As the National Secu­rity Agency (NSA) com­pletes its $2 bil­lion mon­ster data center in Bluff­dale, Utah by the end of 2013, it will be ready to run a new gen­er­a­tion of soft­ware on its mas­sive array of super-computers. Plans for the data center include 100,000 square feet just for com­puters and an addi­tional 900,000 feet for other office space — that’s 23 acres of office space on 240 acres of fenced and guarded secret compound.

U.S. Army Gen­eral Keith Alexander, who heads the NSA as well as the U.S. Cyber Com­mand, insisted in July 2012 that the data center will NOT be used to spy on Amer­ican cit­i­zens: “We don’t store data on U.S. cit­i­zens… That’s baloney. … That’s ludicrous.”

When­ever I hear this kind of rhetoric, espe­cially when no sup­porting evi­dence is offered, I know for cer­tain that the oppo­site is most likely true: NSA will assemble the largest col­lec­tion of cit­izen data in his­tory. It will be the “mother of all fusion centers.”

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Premium Subscriber Access


Forgot Password

News & Analysis

  • Transhumanism, Technocracy, Total Surveillance Society

    Tran­shu­manism, Tech­noc­racy and Total Sur­veil­lance Society are show­cased in this 3 hour radio pre­sen­ta­tion with Patrick Wood, Carl Teichrib and Kaye Beach. It is a good primer and helpful to bring the lis­tener to a solid basic under­standing of what it … Con­tinue reading

  • Is Trayvon Sparking a Communist Revolution?

    Are you puz­zled by the over-reaction and civil unrest over the George Zim­merman trial? Con­sider this: Com­mu­nist front groups are throwing every­thing they have at fomenting and con­tin­uing the protests for their own agenda. Many of these groups have no … Con­tinue reading

  • Risk of Global Financial Freeze-up Rising

    If you thought it couldn’t happen again, get ready: A new global finan­cial freeze-up could be straight ahead. It’s too bad that eco­nomics, trade, finance, etc., are such boring topics to most people. Well, they actu­ally are boring because they … Con­tinue reading

People want to know…


What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)