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 are hard to under­stand, fraught with erro­neous data, and dif­fi­cult to relate to per­sonal circumstances.

By neces­sity, most Amer­i­cans are con­cerned with their own crit­ical prob­lems, like paying the mort­gage, keeping their job and holding their fam­i­lies together. That’s under­stand­able. In spite of the rosy spin on eco­nomic data, the middle class con­tinues to get squashed.

In Jan­uary 2013, 23,087,866 house­holds received food stamps. That’s 889,154 more house­holds than Jan­uary 2012. Given that there are some 115,310,000 house­holds in the U.S., it means that a full 20 per­cent of America cannot ade­quately feed itself.

The above chart shows the Labor Force Par­tic­i­pa­tion Rate (LFPR) since 2000, when the baby-boomer demo­graphic dynamic kicked in. The red line is simply the demo­graphic ele­ment, while the blue line is the actual par­tic­i­pa­tion rate. Since 2000, the actual rate has declined from 67.3 per­cent to 63.3 and since the reces­sion, has sig­nif­i­cantly plunged below the “norm.” The LFTR has fallen back to a level not seen since 1980.

What­ever the reason might be for someone who leaves the work­force (retire­ment, gave up looking, dis­ability) the fact is that since the reces­sion, there has been no real employ­ment recovery, and things con­tinue to get worse, not better.

Not unex­pect­edly, the increase in food stamp recip­i­ents just about matches employ­ment dropouts. If this is the case, then there are a mul­ti­tude of other sta­tis­tics that would follow along: Med­ical pay­ments, unem­ploy­ment, wel­fare pay­ments, etc.

What­ever fragile uptick in eco­nomic activity that might have occurred in the last 24 months, it hasn’t been been enough to reverse the dete­ri­o­ra­tion of the middle class and the swelling of those on poverty roles.

America is not iso­lated in this expe­ri­ence. Europe, China, Aus­tralia, India, Brazil, Japan, etc., are gen­er­ally worse off than we are. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes in The Tele­graph (UK):

The closely-watched ISM index of US fac­to­ries tum­bled through the “boom-bust line” of 50 to 49, far below expec­ta­tions. It is the lowest since the depths of the crisis in mid-2009 and a clear sign that US budget cuts are starting to squeeze the economy. New orders plunged 3.5 to 48.8 on weak for­eign demand and reduced fed­eral contracts.

The news came hours after HSBC said its index for China also fell below 50, a major inflexion point for the world’s indus­trial workshop.

“This is not a good moment for the world economy,” said David Bloom, cur­rency chief at HSBC. “The man­u­fac­turing indices came in weaker than expected in China, Korea, India and Russia, and then we got America’s ISM.

“We thought we had a clear pic­ture that the US was recov­ering, Japan was printing money and were we’re back to happy days, and now sud­denly a huge spanner [wrench] has been thrown in the works.”

On June 2, Bloomberg reported that “Global Inter­bank Lending Falls to Record Low, BIS Reports.” The fra­ternal global banking com­mu­nity is har­boring a mutual dis­trust as they wonder who will implode and leave them with huge losses. It’s get­ting pro­gres­sively worse as cur­rency and interest rate wars heat up. The liq­uidity crisis of 2007 – 2008 was caused by the same type of dis­trust, when banks refused to lend to each other.

Liq­uidity in the global finan­cial system is like oil to a car engine: If it drains out, the engine will freeze up and burn. With eco­nomic malaise infecting the entire global economy, the entire engine of the global economy is at risk of seizing up, which could push the entire system into deep reces­sion or even depression.

Adding to the strain is the sharp rise in interest rates on a global basis, and espe­cially in the U.S. The Fed’s policy of lower interest rates is being tor­pe­doed by market forces, putting it at risk for huge port­folio losses. Why? because all of its Quan­ti­ta­tive Easing pro­gram involves pur­chasing and holding Trea­sury bonds, bills, notes and mortgage-backed secu­ri­ties, in return for which the Trea­sury received cash. When rates go up, the value of bonds declines. As of June 5, 2013, the Fed’s com­bined bal­ance sheet was valued at $3.43 trillion.

Here’s the dilemma: The Fed is trapped. If it were to stop pur­chasing addi­tional Trea­sury oblig­a­tions, then QE would be offi­cially over and the mar­kets would crash. If it con­tinues its pur­chasing pro­gram and swells its bal­ance sheet, it is guar­an­teeing itself even more future losses. If it were to sell any por­tion of its port­folio, it would suck liq­uidity (cash) out of the banking system and cause the mar­kets to crash even harder.

The global banks are in a sim­ilar dilemma since they are also hold huge amounts of gov­ern­ment debt that will decline in value as rates rise. Banks have ignored this risk since the last finan­cial crisis of 2007 – 2008, but it will bite them hard this time around. If major banks start dumping their bonds into the open market, it will risk causing a panic sell-off with other bond owners.

Those policy-makers who think that we will “grow our way out” of this will soon come face to face with the hard data of reces­sion – there isn’t going to be any growth! To the con­trary, the global economy is con­tracting. Any fur­ther decrease in liq­uidity, for what­ever reason, may well cause another “Lehman Brothers moment” where the whole finan­cial system simply freezes up.

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

Find­ings & Fore­casts 06/05/2013

The posi­tion of National Secu­rity Adviser acts like a gate keeper to the Pres­i­dent. This fact has never been lost on the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, where Zbig­niew Brzezinski was National Secu­rity Adviser to Pres­i­dent Jimmy Carter in 1976. Brzezinski chore­o­graphed Carter‘s every move, even brag­ging about it years later.

When it comes to national secu­rity issues (over­seas and domestic), nothing reaches the President’s eyes or ears without being fil­tered and screened by his Adviser. You can imagine pos­si­bility for manip­u­la­tion if the NSA has a secret agenda to use the Pres­i­dent in order to pro­mote goals favor­able to the mem­ber­ship of a pri­vate organization.

When Obama first took office, he appointed 12 per­cent of the U.S. Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship to top posts. Three of these posts related to national security:

• National Secu­rity Adviser, Gen. James L. Jones
• Deputy National Secu­rity Adviser, Thomas Donilon
• Director of National Intel­li­gence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair

When Jones stepped down in October 2010, Tri­lat­eral Thomas Donilon was pro­moted to National Secu­rity Adviser, where he has served until he announced his res­ig­na­tion today.

Alas, that is not the end of Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion hege­mony over Obama. His new appointee? None other than Susan Rice, also a member of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

Rice has been a key policy adviser to Obama since before he even took office. As Ambas­sador to the United Nations, Rice infa­mously presided over the pro­pa­ganda sur­rounding the Beng­hazi ter­rorist attack, which caused her to with­draw from con­sid­er­a­tion for appoint­ment to Sec­re­tary of State to replace Hillary Clinton (Bill Clinton was a member). Rice knew that her Senate con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings would not only be unsuc­cessful, but would force her to answer ques­tions, under oath, regarding her role in Benghazi.

As National Secu­rity Adviser, Senate con­fir­ma­tion for Rice is not required – she will simply take over the posi­tion without fur­ther fan­fare in early July.

The old guard Tri­lat­erals such as Zbig­niew Brzezinski, David Rock­e­feller and Henry Kissinger, are cer­tainly gloating over the unre­strained igno­rance of the Amer­ican public. After all, Tri­lat­erals  have dom­i­nated and con­trolled every pres­i­dent since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Walter Mon­dale, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dick Cheney were all mem­bers, and loaded their respec­tive high-level posi­tions with other Trilaterals.

What is wrong with this pic­ture? When Lin­coln closed his famous Get­tys­burg Address with the words, the “gov­ern­ment of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”, he had never met the likes of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. This pri­vate and elite group of glob­al­ists would more likely say to them­selves, “gov­ern­ment of the Com­mis­sion, by the Com­mis­sion and for the Commission.

Var­ious sto­ries have recently appeared recently that feign out­rage over paid access to the Pres­i­dent. That is, given a cer­tain level of cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions, a person can actu­ally secure a few min­utes with the Pres­i­dent one-on-one.  Talk about straining over a gnat while swal­lowing a camel: The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion has mul­tiple points of 24×7 access to the Pres­i­dent and has had it for decades. Express con­cern over this and you will be handed a tin­foil hat while being made to sit in the corner.

There is another aspect to Rice’s appoint­ment to National Secu­rity Adviser – she will imme­di­ately fall under Obama’s “exec­u­tive priv­i­lege” defense to gain immu­nity that will let her skip tes­ti­fying before Con­gress on the Beng­hazi affair. Every­thing she touches from here on will be shrouded under the cloak of national security.

Tech­noc­racy Update

The fifth require­ment nec­es­sary for the imple­men­ta­tion of Tech­noc­racy was recorded in the Tech­noc­racy Study Course in 1932: “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the individual.”

His­toric Tech­noc­racy was the direct inspi­ra­tion for Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s Nine­teen Eighty Four.  If you have never read these books, you should do so imme­di­ately. This is where we are headed and at break­neck speed. There is no turning back.

It has now been revealed that the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion has ordered, via secret court order, at least one major cell phone car­rier, Ver­izon, to turn over all phone call infor­ma­tion to the National Secu­rity Agency (NSA). This sur­veil­lance is specif­i­cally tar­geting Amer­ican citizens.

Sto­ries abound. The Atlantic Wire head­lines “Phone Sex, Banks & Google for Emails: The NSA Spying Is Bigger Than Ver­izon“:

“The National Secu­rity Agency’s war­rant for meta­data on every single Ver­izon call for three months is jaw-dropping in its scope. Except, well, the NSA’s sur­veil­lance of our com­mu­ni­ca­tions is most likely much, much bigger than that. Tech­nology has made it pos­sible for the Amer­ican gov­ern­ment to spy on cit­i­zens to an extent East Ger­many could only dream of. Basi­cally every­thing we say that can be traced dig­i­tally is being col­lected by the NSA. We’re sup­posed to trust that our gov­ern­ment will be much better behaved, but they’re not, and the White House almost admits it. That doesn’t mean they’re admit­ting everything.”

The NSA is not only col­lecting phone calls, but also bank trans­fers, finan­cial records, emails, travel records, social media com­mu­ni­ca­tions, health records and more. All of this will soon be housed in the NSA’s new mega-data-center in Utah, where a 5-zettabyte storage facility will be com­pleted this fall. All of the known dig­ital infor­ma­tion in the world is believed to be only about 2.7 zettabytes, so the NSA has big plans to spy on you. In fact, they will know more about you than you know about yourself.

The fol­lowing video by John White­head of the Ruther­ford Insti­tute expresses some of these concerns.

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

Find­ings & Fore­casts 05/29/2013

Sys­temic eco­nomic decline begets credit con­trac­tion, leading to defla­tion, cur­rency wars and finally, phys­ical war.

In 2002, one noted econ­o­mist wrote “Ignore the ghost of defla­tion.” Another stated that “Defla­tion is an overblown worry.”

On November 21, 2002, then-Fed Gov­ernor Ben Bernanke spoke to the National Econ­o­mists Club in Wash­ington, D.C. about “Defla­tion: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here. He started with this premise: “With infla­tion rates now quite low in the United States, how­ever, some have expressed con­cern that we may soon face a new problem – the danger of defla­tion, or falling prices.”

Now, of all people, Bernanke knew full well that the mea­sure of defla­tion is not falling prices, but rather the con­trac­tion of overall credit which may or may not prompt falling prices. The rest of his speech argued against falling prices but did little to address credit contraction.

Nev­er­the­less, he gave two prin­cipal rea­sons on why the U.S. would not expe­ri­ence defla­tion in coming years:

1. The first was the “resilience and struc­tural sta­bility” of the U.S. economy itself.
2. The second was the Fed­eral Reserve System itself.

With an apparent atti­tude of over­con­fi­dence, Bernanke then stated,

“I am con­fi­dent that the Fed would take what­ever means nec­es­sary to pre­vent sig­nif­i­cant defla­tion in the United States and, more­over, that the U.S. cen­tral bank, in coop­er­a­tion with other parts of the gov­ern­ment as needed, has suf­fi­cient policy instru­ments to ensure that any defla­tion that might occur would be both mild and brief.

“…Thus, as I have stressed already, pre­ven­tion of defla­tion remains prefer­able to having to cure it. If we do fall into defla­tion, how­ever, we can take com­fort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and suf­fi­cient injec­tions of money will ulti­mately always reverse a defla­tion.” [emphasis added]

In 2013, we can look back over the last 11 years to see how accu­rate Bernanke’s analysis was. The Fed’s easy credit poli­cies cre­ated the biggest housing bubble and sub­se­quent bursting since the Great Depres­sion of the 1930′s. It pushed its internal interest rates to near-zero, pumped tril­lions of dol­lars of liq­uidity into the banking system. Even though some eco­nomic improve­ment has been seen in the last three years (in cer­tain sec­tors, at least), our overall economy has sta­tis­ti­cally made very little progress.

Where has all of the Fed’s new money gone?

In the above chart, Zero Hedge shows the dis­tri­b­u­tion of QE money landing in small banks (blue), large U.S. banks (red) and for­eign banks (yellow). (The chart can be enlarged for better viewing) The cor­re­la­tion here is 100 per­cent! For all those who are shaking their fist at domestic banks like JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Cit­i­group, etc., they would be shocked to see that con­sid­er­able more didn’t ben­efit U.S. banks at all!

So, let me ask the ques­tion: Has Bernanke’s clan­des­tine bailout of (pri­marily) Euro­pean banks saved Europe? The answer, of course, is “No.” Europe is offi­cially in reces­sion again, with sev­eral coun­tries still on the verge of eco­nomic col­lapse and depression.

Thus, the tools that Bernanke thought the Fed had, were illu­sory. For all the bluster, jaw­boning and arm-twisting, the Fed has proven impo­tent on all levels of oper­a­tion. The defla­tion scare orig­i­nally pro­duced because of Japan during the 1990′s con­tinues unabated, and the global eco­nomic system is mea­sur­ably weaker and dys­func­tional today than in 2002.

Cur­rency Wars

Why would I bother to even bring this up? I believe these events are forcing the global elite to change tac­tics, if not strategy, to achieve their beloved “New World Order.” They are extremely wor­ried that market forces are stronger than their ability to manip­u­late, and that the end result could set them back by sev­eral decades.

What now con­cerns the elite the most is the expan­sion of cur­rency wars which have been enabled and exac­er­bated by dys­func­tional cap­ital flows as described above. His­tor­i­cally, cur­rency wars are the out­come of a shrinking economy where nation-states must com­pete for a dwin­dling share of the global economy. Fur­ther­more, cur­rency wars invari­ably pre­cede real wars, as was the case in both WWI and WWII. This is not lost on the global elite.

As the dollar has been ral­lying sharply higher in recent weeks, a host of arti­cles has appeared heralding the death of the dollar. One writer recently stated, “For years now, the col­lapse of the dollar has been in the cards.” He doesn’t say who owns the cards or who the dealer is. CNBC asks today, “Is the Dollar Dying? Why US Cur­rency is in Danger:” “The U.S dollar is shrinking as a per­centage of the world’s cur­rency supply, raising con­cerns that the green­back is about to see its long run as the world’s pre­mier denom­i­na­tion come to an end.“

Let me set the record straight. The dollar is not dying. How­ever, the reason it is rising in value has nothing to do with some inherent good­ness in the U.S. economy or the color green. Rather, it has to do with cur­rency wars where other nations are trying to devalue their own cur­ren­cies at the expense of the dollar. They go down, we go up. All of the Fed’s efforts to drive the dollar down (Yes, the Fed would be a cur­rency manip­u­lator too) have failed, pri­marily because the Fed is not greater than the com­bined dozens of nations who des­per­ately want to devalue.

This leads us to examine a recent lec­ture by C. Fred Berg­sten, senior fellow and director emer­itus of the Peterson Insti­tute for Inter­na­tional Eco­nomics. Berg­sten was an orig­inal founding member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, and one of the prin­cipal early archi­tects of the “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” that it espoused. Bergsten’s major con­cern is revealed in his paper’s title – “Cur­rency Wars, The Economy of the United States And Reform Of The Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary System.” He con­cludes his lengthy talk by stating,

“I would like to close with a his­tor­ical foot­note from over 40 years ago that bears some resem­blance to where we stand today. Four days after the Nixon shocks of August 1971, their archi­tect John Con­nally asked four out­siders (I had left the gov­ern­ment a few months ear­lier) to spend most of a day with him and his top team, led by Paul Vol­cker, at the Trea­sury. He began by saying “you know what we have done, please tell us what we should do next” – at which point I really began to worry! He then per­son­ally led us through six hours of intense dis­cus­sion, during which I stressed the oppor­tu­ni­ties they had cre­ated for sys­temic reform – espe­cially moving to flex­ible exchange rates. It became increas­ingly clear that Con­nally did not have sys­temic goals in mind, how­ever, and he finally brought the ses­sion to a close with the fol­lowing state­ment: “I appre­ciate the advice from you gen­tlemen and want to share my own phi­los­ophy with you before we break up: the for­eigners are out to screw us and our job is to screw them first. Thank you and goodbye.”

“Having spent most of the pre­vious three years as Henry Kissinger’s deputy for for­eign eco­nomic policy, I thought I was fairly sophis­ti­cated about the ways of both Wash­ington and the world – but even I was stunned by Connally’s xeno­phobia (which I imme­di­ately con­veyed to Kissinger, who had not been aware of it, but that is another story). The rel­e­vance to today is of course that some of the for­eigners have again been screwing the United States (and much of the world), to use Connally’s col­orful ter­mi­nology. The choice, now as then, is whether to respond nation­al­is­ti­cally and uni­lat­er­ally or sys­tem­i­cally and mul­ti­lat­er­ally – or, as is most likely, a com­bi­na­tion of the two, hope­fully with a clear strategic deci­sion to use national actions to achieve global reform. Our goal must be to start resolving these cru­cial prob­lems by reforming the global system deci­sively before the arrival of the next John Connally.

“Addressing another vital issue of US national interest in which China also plays a cen­tral role, cyber­se­cu­rity, Pres­i­dent Obama used these words in his State of the Union mes­sage in Feb­ruary: “We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing!” I would submit that we should adopt the same atti­tude toward wide­spread cur­rency manip­u­la­tion, which vio­lates the most basic pre­cepts of the inter­na­tional eco­nomic system while destroying growth and jobs in our own economy and in numerous other coun­tries. The time for action has clearly come. It is time to declare war on the cur­rency wars. [emphasis added] [Ed. Note: Kissinger and Vol­cker ware also mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission]

The inten­sity of Bergsten’s con­cern is easily detected throughout his paper, but the derailing of his glob­alist agenda is the major point. Bergsten’s orig­inal and naive design for “flex­ible exchange rates” is being scut­tled by greedy, selfish and self-centered for­eigners who have imple­mented cur­rency wars against each other and the United States.

It is ironic that orig­inal mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion had no problem pil­laging and plun­dering the world back in 1973, but when they get “screwed” (his word, not mine) by “some of the for­eigners” in 2013, it’s cause for national alarm. It is also ironic that while mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion eschewed the Con­sti­tu­tion, the nation-state and national sov­er­eignty back then, they look to the same nation-state today for relief.

A large part of the global elite’s para­noia stems from their fear of global and uncon­trolled war. Along the lines of Schumpeter’s theory of Cre­ative Destruc­tion, regional and local con­flicts are con­trol­lable – and thus prof­itable – but unre­strained war ends up destroying the means of production.

Few, if any, Amer­i­cans would wish for war, but we should realize that if cur­rency wars are not con­tained, phys­ical con­flict will follow. While it may appear that we are lined with the global elite on cur­rency wars, our motives could not be fur­ther apart. We seek freedom and lib­erty: They seek global domination.

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

Find­ings & Fore­casts 05/22/2013

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

The 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.

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

Economy

With three con­cur­rent and major gov­ern­ment scan­dals filling the media, very few people will pay atten­tion or care about the eco­nomic con­ta­gion spreading throughout Europe, but they should.

One cer­tain out­come of Obama’s chaotic Admin­is­tra­tion is grid­lock. With Con­gress on the warpath, every bureau­crat at every level will be in hiding so as to not draw atten­tion to them­selves. This means even less focus on the economy, spending, jobs, etc. Con­gress itself will be con­sumed with end­less hear­ings and inves­ti­ga­tions while cor­po­rate and glob­alist lob­by­ists (unac­count­able to public pres­sure) will push trade un-vetted leg­is­la­tion through right under our nose.

Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel wasn’t the first person to sug­gest “Never let a good crisis to go waste.”  Hillary and Bill Clinton both said it. Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioners Henry Kissinger and Zbig­niew Brzezinski were prob­ably the first in modern his­tory to ver­balize it. The point is, it’s not a new idea. It is a cen­tral theme in the glob­alist play­book and his­tory bears it out: “Ordo ab Chao” – Order from Chaos.

Zbig­niew Brzezinski wrote,

“How­ever crudely and prim­i­tively, man has always sought to crys­tal­lize some orga­nizing prin­ciple that would, by cre­ating order out of chaos, relate him to the uni­verse and help define his place in it.” (Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, p. 31)

Indeed, chaos is viewed as oppor­tu­nity by the global elite and thus, America is ripe for wrenching change thanks to the chaos that is upon us.

So, it fig­ures that the 17th round of nego­ti­a­tions for the Trans Pacific Part­ner­ship (TPP) is set to start today (May 15) and run through May 24 – in Lima Peru. There are over 600 “stake­holders” who will meet with nego­tia­tors from the 12 nations on the Pacific Rim  (Aus­tralia, Brunei Darus­salam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Sin­ga­pore, United States, and Vietnam). These so-called stake­holders include mem­bers of acad­emia, NGO’s, labor unions, and global corporations.

It has been esti­mated that about 20 per­cent of the TPP has to do with actual trade issues. The other 80 per­cent has to do with binding reg­u­la­tions that will super­sede the laws of indi­vidual nations. Remember the damage that NAFTA (nego­ti­ated by George W. Bush and signed into law by Bill Clinton) caused in the inter­vening years.

Will anyone cover this round of TPP nego­ti­a­tions? Not likely. No doubt that many will be smiling in the absence of media scrutiny.

Another key trade agree­ment moving for­ward is the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Invest­ment Part­ner­ship (TTIP). Although just get­ting underway, the TTIP is expected to be the largest Free Trade Agree­ment in the his­tory of our country. Again, the trade por­tion will be much smaller than the non-trade issues that deal with reg­u­la­tions, nor­mal­iza­tion, legal dis­putes, tax­a­tion, etc.

As scandal-mania moves for­ward, Democ­rats are racing to dis­tance them­selves from Obama, hoping to pre­serve some stature in the upcoming midterm elec­tions in 2014. The odds increase daily that both the House and the Senate will gather a GOP majority and push the Democ­rats back into the minority position.

While con­ser­v­a­tives are already sali­vating over this pos­si­bility, they should be careful what they wish for, because the cham­pions of Free Trade and dis­as­trous trade agree­ment have mostly come from the GOP, not Democ­rats. In fact, the greater majority of Democ­rats have con­sis­tently voted against Free Trade deals that have hurt Amer­ican jobs and industries.

Thus, without a healthy per­centage of Democ­rats in the Senate and House, all of the upcoming Free Trade Agree­ments are vir­tu­ally guar­an­teed to pass with what­ever sovereignty-robbing text that the “stake­holders” can stuff in.

But, back to Europe.

France has just slipped back into reces­sion as their economy shrunk by 0.2 per­cent in Q1 2013.

The reces­sion across the 17 member euro­zone has now entered its sixth quarter, the longest reces­sion since the union con­gealed in 1995. It is now obvious to all that Ger­many alone is unable to save any part of the euro­zone from GDP shrinkage. With their own growth rate stag­nating at 0.1 per­cent in the first quarter, they are per­ilously close to reces­sion themselves.

We can only hope that the depres­sion that is still raging in Greece does not become reality for the rest of Europe. It is now in its fifth year of eco­nomic decline, expecting a GDP con­trac­tion of 4.2 per­cent in 2013, while unem­ploy­ment con­tinues to soar. Overall unem­ploy­ment has risen to 27 per­cent but job­less youth has grown to an unbe­liev­able 64.2 per­cent! Yes, two out of three people between the ages of 15 and 24 are without work.

Mean­while, the Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund con­tinues to put the screws to Greece, demanding fur­ther tax reform and reduc­tion in public debt.

Italy is a country locked into polit­ical grid­lock, and it shows. Its economy will shrink around 1.8 per­cent in 2013 as unem­ploy­ment stays above 11.5 per­cent. Youth unem­ploy­ment rose to 36.3 per­cent in March.

The above chart sums up the rest of Europe by showing the momentum of GDP growth. Greece has lit­er­ally dropped off the chart. Por­tugal, Spain and Italy are grouped as the next worse per­formers. Fin­land and The Nether­lands com­prise a middle group. The top grouping con­sists of Ger­many, Aus­tria, Ire­land and Bel­gium. How­ever, note that except for Ger­many, the momentum on all these coun­tries is still down.

The largest country to the east, Russia, is tech­ni­cally in a reces­sion as its basic indus­tries have con­tracted for two quar­ters in a row. If Russia posts any growth this year, it will likely be under 1 percent.

British econ­o­mists are dis­puting among them­selves as to whether or not Eng­land had a double-dip reces­sion. They did, but after revi­sions to the 2012 num­bers were released, they didn’t. The Brits are famous for these kind of mean­ing­less debates. Unem­ploy­ment has risen to 7.9 per­cent while the rate of job­less youth stands at 20.7 percent.

The actual state of the euro­zone economy simply do not sup­port the polit­ical rhetoric and wishful thinking that we hear from the media. Europe is still a mess and there are no real signs of relief. Until coun­tries in Europe can shrink public and pri­vate debt, their down­ward spiral will continue.

The cor­re­sponding down­ward pull on the U.S. economy is still evi­dent and will also continue.

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

The Beng­hazi Bus

The Beng­hazi scandal is unques­tion­ably the lowest point of Amer­ican for­eign policy in the last 50 years. It sends a mes­sage to all for­eign ser­vice workers that their gov­ern­ment will no longer rescue them when expe­ri­encing hos­tile sit­u­a­tions; this flies in the face of his­tor­ical mil­i­tary coda where all avail­able resources are brought to bear to rescue and pro­tect the wounded, trapped or endan­gered. Fur­ther­more, it brands our gov­ern­ment as unre­li­able and untruthful.

Hence­forth, diplo­mats and sol­diers every­where should beware of the “Beng­hazi Bus“, which could run over them at any incon­ve­nient time. Get­ting Beng­hazied may even become a new verb in diplo­matic language.

Today’s live tes­ti­mony of the “Beng­hazi Whistle blowers” before the House Over­sight & Gov­ern­ment  Reform Com­mittee could pro­vide the tes­ti­mony that takes down the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion. Or not. The ques­tion is, will Con­gress have the guts to impeach the public offi­cials who were respon­sible for the dis­aster and the sub­se­quent coverup. This writer’s guess is that no one will be held account­able in the end.

This writer’s orig­inal analysis of the Sep­tember 11, 2012 Beng­hazi attack and coverup can be read in these two articles:

• The Beng­hazi Affair: Tri­lat­eral Policy Failure Or Success?
• Update on Benghazi

Those tes­ti­fying before the House Com­mittee are high-profile whistle blowers, including the former deputy chief of mis­sion in Libya, Greg Hicks. Hicks imme­di­ately became the chief of mis­sion when it was learned that his boss, Amb. Chris Stevens was killed during the attack. Eric Nord­strom was the former regional secu­rity officer in Libya, respon­sible for overall secu­rity of U.S. and diplo­matic per­sonnel. Mark Thompson is the deputy assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for counterterrorism.

After lis­tening to the entire live tes­ti­mony on C-Span, and reading numerous reports on this and the other 8 Con­gres­sional hear­ings, it is evi­dent that there were two layers of oper­a­tion in Beng­hazi. First, there was a blackops group cen­tered in and oper­ating out of the CIA com­pound that was just down the road from the diplo­matic mis­sion: Exactly what they were doing in Libya will never be fully known.

Sec­ondly, there was the diplo­matic mis­sion that was in the chain of com­mand under the Depart­ment of State. By con­trast, we now know a lot about this.

According to eye-witness tes­ti­mony, the 9/11 (2012) attack was clearly planned and exe­cuted by a known ter­rorist group and everyone in Libya under­stood this to be the case. This infor­ma­tion was clearly passed up the ladder to direct lead­er­ship in Wash­ington, who chose to ignore it and instead cooked up an entirely dif­ferent story for the world press.

Hicks, Nord­strom and Thompson tes­ti­fied that a mil­i­tary stand-down order was indeed issued that pre­vented a team of Spe­cial Oper­a­tions troops from flying into Beng­hazi. They could not even get a simple fighter jet fly­over to take place, which would have quickly dis­persed the attackers. (The ter­ror­ists are deathly afraid of laser-guided arma­ments car­ried by U.S. air­planes because once they are “locked”, they are as good as dead.)

The only impor­tant ques­tions that remain con­cern who threw the Beng­hazi mis­sion under the bus in the first place, and then who orches­trated the coverup.

To answer the first ques­tion, focus should return to the President’s National Secu­rity Adviser, Tom Donilon. Nothing of a secu­rity nature gets to the President’s atten­tion except through the National Secu­rity Adviser. They meet daily for brief­ings, and are together during any devel­oping event that requires exec­u­tive atten­tion. [Note that Donilon is a member of the global elite group The Tri­lat­eral Commission.]

On October 12, 2012, Fox News aired a TV inter­view with Newt Gin­grich, where he stated very plainly,

“There is a rumor  —  I want to be clear, it’s a rumor  —  that at least two net­works have emails from the National Secu­rity Adviser’s office [Tom Donilon] telling a counter-terrorism group to stand down,” Gin­grich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobi­lize marines and C-130s and the fighter air­craft, and they were told explic­itly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a ter­rorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reli­able U.S. sen­ator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enor­mous ques­tions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Secu­rity Adviser’s role, the Sec­re­tary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoul­ders, that he said don’t go.”

Until Donilon is called to tes­tify under oath, we may never know the truth, but all logic points to Donilon’s direct involve­ment and hence, in pos­sible com­plicity with Obama himself.

The coverup was pub­licly orches­trated pri­marily by U.N. Ambas­sador Susan Rice, also a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. She was the front-person who appeared on sev­eral national TV broad­casts while blaming the Beng­hazi “protest-gone –bad” on a stupid Youtube video that sup­pos­edly mocked Mohammed. This idea did not come from any Beng­hazi staff or from Libyan allies, but rather from someone in Wash­ington, D.C.

There are only three pos­sible and plau­sible choices of origin: Tom Donilon, Susan Rice or Hilary Clinton. Take your pick. [Remember that Bill Clinton is a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion as well.]

Who­ever is respon­sible, an addi­tional charge of wrongful death must be laid at the feet of Rice and Clinton, who per­pet­u­ated the fraud­u­lent rumor that the Youtube video was to blame. This need­lessly inflamed the Muslim world, who orig­i­nally had no interest in the video, resulting in mul­tiple riots that left at least 75 addi­tional people dead.

Had the real facts been quickly known about the Beng­hazi attacks and how the Admin­is­tra­tion threw the Ambas­sador and others under the bus, the November 2012 elec­tions would have gone badly for the Democ­rats. This addi­tional pres­sure to cover up auto­mat­i­cally became cover-up-at-all-costs.

Will all the facts ever be revealed? Prob­ably not. Will any Con­gres­sional inves­ti­ga­tion or hearing result in charges or threats of impeach­ment? Not likely.

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