Puerto Rico Referendum Votes For Statehood…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 23, 2017

This is one of those “small stories” that occurred in the last few days, that could have huge repercussions, if my high octane speculation of the day has any merit. The story, such as it is, was noticed by many of you, who sent different versions of it, but this one sent by Mr. V.T. from our friends at The Daily Bell is perhaps one “take” worth considering:

Wrong Way! Why Would Puerto Rico Want to Become a State?

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/wrong-way-why-would-puerto-rico-want-to-become-a-state/embed/#?secret=zRFUePAMDj

The first four paragraphs say it all:

Secession has been a hot topic lately from Brexit, to Catalonia, to California; so why is Puerto Rico voting on statehood tomorrow?

It is a non-binding referendum which asks Puerto Ricans if they would rather the territory remain as it is now, become an American state, or go entirely independent. But some say the election has been rigged for the pro-statehood group.

And indeed, they seem to have the most power right now. The big fish in a small pond are seeking to form a delegation of two “Senators” and five “Representatives” in order to lobby Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st American State. Puerto Rico already has a Congresswoman who goes to DC, though she is not a voting member. Go figure she supports statehood, as someone who has the most to gain from it.

But the real reason many Puerto Ricans see statehood as appealing: the territory is bankrupt. Somehow it only took $73 billion in debt (about $20,000 per capita) to bankrupt Puerto Rico, as opposed to close to $20 trillion in debt (over $60,000 per capita) the U.S.A. holds. (Puerto Rico cannot simply print more money to pay their debts in inflated currency as the U.S. does–a back door tax.)

Now, since the referendum, as The Daily Bell staff points out, there have been the usual claims of rigging and so on. Indeed, as far as I can tell, approximately 20% of that island’s voting population actually turned out to vote, leaving one to wonder what the non-participating eligible voting population of that island thinks, and why.

Whatever they’re thinking, however, The Daily Bell is correct: Puerto Rico’s mounting debt crisis is driving the move toward statehood, in the hopes that by becoming a state, the debt gets “absorbed” into the US federal debt, and economic woes on the island are relieved at the expense of the US taxpayer. If so, then Puerto Rico becomes another one-party republic, like California or Illinois, in the greater “union.”

So where’s the high octane speculation in that? Consider, for a moment, the current drive in some places for a constitutional convention as the cure-all for America’s ills. Here I’m in four-square agreement with Catherine Austin Fitts: a constitutional convention is the last thing America needs, especially given the “class” and “character” of the people who favor it, for it would be a convenient way to finalize what she has been calling the “financial coup d’etat”, whereby all the liabilities are rolled into the public sector, and all the assets are privatized, thus writing off all the “bad paper” in the financial system, and “privatizing” the assets of the country to do it, turning it into a corporate fiefdom. If you think things are bad with the media, or corporate behavior, now, just wait. And Puerto Rican statehood would, in my opinion, be one way to use a “crisis of opportunity” either to call for such a convention, or to address constitutional issues by Congressional fiat.

And this is why I entertain suspicions about the referendum to begin with: it seems contrived; a “small thing” that could turn into a very “big thing” in very short order, as the swamp seeks to extend itself. We don’t need a new constitution, we need to observe (for once)the one we already have. I shudder to think of the financial and cultural nightmare the country will become if the current political class – the Hillary Clintons and Jeb Bushes and Chuck Schumers get their hands on it: think of the trumpet-nosed man in the Beatles’ movie, The Yellow Submarine, sucking everything out of a lush valley. None of the people talking about the idea are of the stature of a Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson, and none of them have individual freedom and responsibility as their goal. Thus, if anything, the Puerto Rican referendum seems oddly – and in my opinion, suspiciously – out of place, as the Daily Bell points out: in the context of moves of secession in Catalonia in Spain, of BREXITS in Great Britain, of Venezia in Italy, even of Nuttyfornia, Puerto Rico, bucking the trend, wants to join.

True, lifeboats take much less time to sink than the Titantic, but nonetheless, the Titanic still goes down because the crew steams full steam into a field of icebergs.

So, Puerto Rico may have just provided them with the excuse they need to “restructure everything.” Those in steerage, please wait in line while we get first class passengers into the life boats.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Who Cares About the “Wealth Gap” if Everyone is Richer?


Source: ActivistPost.com
Joe Jarvis
June 22, 2017

How many successful people can there be? It seems like, after every article you read these days, the author bio talks about a book they have written, an invention they created, a prestigious award or some other indicator of great success. Yet I’ve never really heard of most of them.

I used to get pangs of jealousy when I would see descriptions like that of successful people; it almost felt like there were a limited number of “success” spots on planet earth, and if they were taking one up, it made it that much less likely for me to get one.

But it’s not true. There is no limit to the number of successful people that can exist, especially since everyone has a slightly different idea of success.

And in the same vein, there is no limit to how many wealthy people there can be. Wealth is not a zero-sum game, there is not some amount of wealth out there that once it is grabbed, is gone. Anyone can create wealth. Growing a garden is a great place to start creating the necessities to live and giving yourself a little food shortage insurance plan.

When people say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that is a huge misrepresentation of what is really happening, even if the rich have far more compared to the poor.

For example, let’s use the amount of healthy food that can be purchased as an indicator of wealth. If a “poor” person could once only afford 10 pounds of healthy food per week, and a “rich” person could afford 100 pounds, the rich person is ten times richer than the poor person. But now suppose a poor person can afford 100 pounds of healthy food per week, and a rich person can afford 2,000 pounds.

True, the wealth gap has doubled from 1-10 to 1-20, yet the poor person is living as richly as only the wealthy could in years past.

This is the true nature of the wealth gap. Almost everyone is better off these days. The gap doesn’t matter as much as the minimum standard of living.

The classic example which always comes to mind for me is of President Calvin Coolidge who lived in the White House fewer than 100 years ago. One of the most powerful people on Earth watched helplessly as his son died of an infected blister from playing tennis.

In that sense, everyone living in America today has a higher standard of living than the President and his family had 90 years ago. Advancements in medicine, technology, information, and production have risen the standard of living for everyone.

This chart shows the exponential nature in which people are being lifted out of poverty.

Poverty has not yet been entirely eradicated, but at this pace, as long as those in power don’t thrust the world back into the Dark Ages, it is only a matter of time until Earth is basically free from poverty.

And at that point, when all needs are being met, what does it matter if the richest person has 10, 50, or a thousand times more wealth than the poorest?

Options and a Backup Plan = Freedom

There was a time when the options for a person to create enough wealth to live were very few.

Do you want to live in…

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com

Big Step Forward for Sound Money: Texas Picks Company to Run Bullion Depository


Source: ActivistPost.com
Michael Maharrey
June 22, 2017

The Texas bullion depository took a major step closer to reality last week when officials formally announced the private vendor that will run the facility. The creation of a state bullion depository in Texas represents a power shift away from the federal government to the state, and it provides a blueprint that could ultimately end the Fed.

Gov. Greg Abbot signed legislation creating the state gold bullion and precious metal depository in June of 2015. The facility will not only provide a secure place for individuals, business, cities, counties, government agencies and even other countries to to store gold and other precious metals, the law also creates a mechanism to facilitate the everyday use of gold and silver in business transactions. In short, a person will be able to deposit gold or silver – and pay other people through electronic means or checks – in sound money.

Last Wednesday, Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar announced Austin-based Lone Star Tangible Assets will build and operate the Texas Bullion Depository. Officials say the facility could open as early as next January.

The company will initially run the depository out of its current Austin location, and will build a new vault facility in the Austin area. Hegar said customers will not have to travel to Austin in order to utilize the depository. The plan is to establish a branch-like system.

“We envision a network of licensed and insured depository agents to help Texans sign up for our services,” Hegar told the Texas Tribune.

Tom Smelker will serve as the state’s first Texas Bullion Depository administrator. He is currently the director of Treasury Operations in the Comptroller’s office.

According to an article in the Star-Telegram, state officials want a facility ‘with an e-commerce component that also provides for secure physical storage for Bullion in an existing facility or a newly constructed facility.’ Officials say plans for a depository should include online services that would let customers accept, transfer and withdraw bullion deposits and related fees.

By making gold and silver available for regular, daily transactions by the general public, the new law has the potential for wide-reaching effect. Professor William Greene is an expert on constitutional tender and said in a paper for the Mises Institute that when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a ‘reverse Gresham’s Law’ effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes).

As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.

University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus called development of a state gold depository a step toward independence.

This is another in a long line of ways to make Texas more self-reliant and less tethered to the federal government. The financial impact is small but the political impact is telling, Many conservatives are interested in returning to the gold standard and circumvent the Federal reserve in whatever small way they can.

The Texas gold depository will create a mechanism to challenge the federal government’s monopoly on money, and provides a blueprint for other states to follow. If the majority of states controlled their own supply of gold, it could conceivably make the Federal Reserve completely irrelevant.

State bullion depositories are one of four steps states can take to help bring down the Fed.

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
___________________________________________________

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Facebook, The CIA & The Clintons

Secrecy

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 20 2017

This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.

Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of stock in 2012, I’ve been following the trail of its stock price.

In 2012, I wrote:

“But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.”

“Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. ‘Experts’ are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.”

“This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play… First, [insiders] drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.”

In 2013, I followed up and wrote: “Facebook launched its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price was 42 dollars a share.”

“In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55.”

“On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the stock reached an all-time high: 52.21.”

“So…Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices, scaring lots of investors.”

“They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at delicious discounts.”

“Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to move the price. Up. The long climb begins.”

Now, in June of 2017, it’s time to check in again. What’s happened to Facebook’s stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?

From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks—and of course, insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves. The shakeout took the stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to $115.05.

Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.

All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17…and now $150.

Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook’s long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?

I ask that question because of Facebook’s CIA connections:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the park for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an anti-Trump stance, which meant a pro-Hillary stance. Is that a pro-CIA stance? Let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.

The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill HE WAS STILL THEIR MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

“I’m not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….

“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992 Presidential campaign.

That speaks of major planning. In 1992, an obscure governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the White House.

Now, consider the role of the CIA-connected Facebook in the 2016 presidential election. Did Facebook’s strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep the Clintons in power?

Since 1986, have the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?

Was the most recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put Hillary in the White House?

Most people have a problem looking at log-term ops. They conceive of covert actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That’s exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they’re in the clear.

And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and support their favored presidential candidate—all during the same dozen years.

It’s an easy program.

All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

…Oh, And By The Way, It’s Not Just Germany That Is Upset…

alternative news
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 20, 2017

Sometimes I feel like I’m living in some sort of geopolitical time warp, or a teacup carnival ride, based not on whirling teacups, but whirling countries, all spinning around on an out of control machine called Brzezinski’s Folly. Brzezinski’s folly is a machine that runs on the assumption that, America being the “sole remaining superpower”, it can and should attempt to run the rest of the world, no matter what the cost…

…even if the cost means pushing powerful allies like Germany and Japan away.

Case in point: yesterday, you’ll recall, I blogged about my long-held, seldom-voiced suspicion that some sort of covert warfare has been going on between the USA and Germany for quite some time. I finally have been talking more openly about that suspicion, since it seems to be being confirmed by various German and European leaders, not the least of whom is Chancellorin Merkel herself.

But in sifting through this week’s emails, the other shoe dropped, in this article shared by Mr. J.C.; and as you read this, when was the last time you saw the Chinese Premier shaking hands with the Japanese Premier, and both men were smiling?

Even Japan Is Now Considering Joining China’s One Belt, One Road

I cannot get out of my head what a monumental symbol this picture is, notwithstanding the contents of the article itself. We cannot approximate the earthquake it signals, especially in the Orient. There is bad blood between China and Japan… the Rape of Nanking, the Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria and the establishment of a Japanese puppet state there under the de facto control of Field Marshal Terauchi. Then the plundering under Operation Golden Lilly. Nor was it all one-sided: the Chinese entry into the Korean war – Korea being a former Japanese colony – Mao’s bluster and threats…

For this to happen is a major event. But as readers of this website know, it has been a long time coming, and was about to happen a few years ago. There was talk of a state visit of Emperor Akihito to Beijing, then… Fukushima happened. I do not need to recount the more-than-suspicious chain of events, because readers of this website are well aware of them.

Shinzo Abe has, in his tenure as Japanese Premier, accomplished some truly amazing feats of diplomacy. He has managed, with his counterpart Mr. Putin, to side-step the thorny issue of the legal status of the Kuril  islands, to begin actual economic development of them, jointly with Russia. That was a major hatchet, not only to bury, but to turn into something economically beneficial.

Now there is China, and its Silk Road project:

I want to focus on some paragraphs in this article, for I tend to see things very differently than does Mina Pollman, author of the article:

Japan would, of course, prefer a U.S.-based regional order and has thus been leery of OBOR. But after watching the United States retreat under President Donald Trump – most dramatically by pulling the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – it is understandable that Japan is considering alternative options, such as limited cooperation with China.

Abe specifically stated that one of the conditions that would have to be met for Japanese participation in OBOR is “harmony with a free and fair Trans-Pacific economic zone,” in reference to the requirements, including labor and environmental regulations, painstakingly negotiated in the 12-country TPP deal.

Abe also noted that it is “critical for infrastructure to be open to use by all, and to be developed through procurement that is transparent and fair. … I furthermore consider it essential for projects to be economically viable and to be financed by debt that can be repaid, and not to harm the soundness of the debtor nation’s finances.”

Japan’s concerns about OBOR’s lack of transparency mirror its criticisms of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – which Japan is also considering joining, after resisting it for so long. With rumors that the United States might join, Japan may find the idea more attractive. (Emphasis added)

While the article makes it sound as if Japan’s turn to China is a result largely of the recent administration’s policies, I suspect – strongly – that this turn has been considered by (if Ii may so put it) the mandarins in Tokyo for some time. The instability that the USA has fostered in recent decades as a result of Brzezinski’s Folly, along with an economy that can only export GMOs and war has caused a “rethink” of relations from Tokyo to Berlin. The Trump administration and the TPP are the excuse and crisis of opportunity that were seized to do what they had long been thinking. Again, in this respect, it is crucial to recall that Japan was attempting to make these overtures before the Abe government took power.

Mr. Abe’s two-step here has been carefully conceived. Unlike the previous Japanese government, Mr. Abe decided to rearm, and to change the part of the Japanese constitution that put an upper limit based on percentage of GDP to defense spending. This, publicly, was done to reassure Washington that Japan was going to “do its part” for Pacific rim security. But Mr. Abe’s unstated goal, I contend, was to send messages to North Korea and China, particularly the latter. While a symbolic gesture, the message is clear: we can rearm, if we want to… now, let’s talk… Japan’s rearmament, in other words, was as much about perceived growing weakness and instability in Washington, as it was about helping Washington.

Me. Abe’s position is further enhanced by his agreements with Russia, not just with the Kuril islands, but more importantly, by the extension to Russia, by Japan, of the use of its financial clearing agency in the Pacific, widely used in the region. This, readers of the website may recall, happened a couple of years ago, in the aftermath of the imposition of sanctions on Russia. In other words, Japan did not “play ball” with Washington, and put into place a major component of an independent financial clearing system with Russia.

It’s that financial clearing aspect of the story that, I suggest in today’s high octane speculation, is behind this story, and Japan’s need for more “transparency” in the “One belt one road” project: for “transparency” read “Japanese participation” in whatever financial clearing arrangements the Chinese have in mind as an alternative to the West’s “SWIFT” system. Additionally, “transparency” also means in other space-related matters and ventures, because China has made it abundantly clear that the “One road one Belt” is not simply confined to planet Earth.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Even Google Employees Can No Longer Afford Housing in San Francisco

Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
June 16, 2017

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the new Google modular home

Every now and then a story appears in the national media that causes a lightbulb to start flashing incessantly in my head. For me, such a story came to my attention today and relates to how Google is manufacturing housing for some of its employees due to the ridiculous cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Here’s a summary from The Verge:

Google’s employees can’t find affordable housing in Silicon Valley, so the company is investing in modular homes that’ll serve as short-term housing for them. The Wall Street Journal reports that Google has ordered 300 units from a startup called Factory OS, which specializes in modular homes. The deal reportedly costs between $25 and $30 million.

Modular homes are completely built in a factory and assembled like puzzle pieces onsite. This method of construction can reduce the cost of construction by 20 to 50 percent, the Journal reports. These apartments can also be put up more quickly to address dire housing needs. In one case the Journal cites, tenants saved $700 a month because of reduced construction costs.

Earlier this year, CNBC published a piece that detailed the difficulty tech companies have in trying to convince possible employees to move to San Francisco, especially when they live abroad. In response, some startups are establishing offices in other cities, like Chicago and Seattle. The other option is to out-tech the housing crisis, as Google appears to be doing with its modular home investment.

First, let’s get a couple of things out of the way. Yes, I understand that San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the world, and yes, I get that nobody is forcing anyone to work for Google or live there. Yes, I understand that this is probably intended for entry level employees. Yes, I understand that revolutionary new ways of building homes using technology is the future, and the ability for such techniques to reduce costs is a positive thing. Yes, I understand all of that, yet I still think this development is a  sign we are getting closer to some sort of breaking point.

The middle class in America has been getting squeezed for a long time, and the societal, political and ethical ramifications of this development cannot be overstated. In fact, I’ve been so concerned about the U.S. transformation into a neo-feualism serf economy, I’ve dedicated much of the last decade to writing and warning about it. What’s going on with Google employees unable to afford housing is a sign that this corrupt, fraud economy is now starting to affect even the fortunate amongst us.

Google is one of the most successful companies the world has ever seen, and if its employees are struggling to find a place to live (I don’t care what city it is), something’s really not working. To me, this is a clear glitch in the matrix. A sign that some sort of reckoning is near. How that reckoning manifests I have no idea, but most companies

Read More at: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

More Russia Sanctions From The US = Deteriorating Relations With…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 19, 2017

A few days ago I blogged (finally!) about my long-held suspicions that the USA was waging some sort of quiet economic warfare against Germany. It’s a suspicion I’ve had for some time, and even on occasion discussed it in private with various colleagues. Certainly there is something going on, given the strange “German” presence on the fringes of some well-known and tragic events. Consider only the presence of Andreas Strassmeir in the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the strange German connections in the 9/11 event(notice I’m carefully avoiding JFK). Since then, we’ve seen various fines levied against Germany’s, and Europe’s, largest bank, Deutsche Bank, in an almost steady stream, to the point one almost begins to ask “How much will Deutsche Bank be fined by the USA this week?” Then, of course, we’ve also seen various fines imposed against German automakers, and so on.

Then came the Ukrainian mess, the US-sponsored-and-led coup, the Russian reaction, and a strange set of behavior from Chancellorin Merkel, who seemed initially to be all for the Ukrainian adventure of the USA, until it became apparent that Germany wasn’t going to profit very much from the results. Then she “took charge” and attempted to negotiate directly with Mr. Putin, taking her vice-chancellor, Monsieur Hollande, in two to make it look all “trans-European” and “international”.

While all that was going on, Frau Merkel was publicly all aboard with the sanctions against Russia, notwithstanding it hurt Germany’s economy, and in the meantime, she continued to press ahead with energy pipelines with Russia, while German Laender politicians made their way to Moscow, defying Berlin, to reassure the Russians that they wanted to return to “normal”(meaning, no sanctions), and this was followed by similar assurances from German big business.

But more recently, things seem to be breaking out into the open in a much more blatant fashion, for Germany at least, seems unwilling to soft-peddle the matter anymore: Frau Merkel has come out recently and stated that the UK and USA are no longer “reliable allies” and, never one to let slip an opportunity to call for more “Europeanism”, has called for more effort on defense, not only from EU members (like her own country) but from the EU itself.

The US Senate last week passed a new bill, imposing more sanctions on Russia and hand-tying the Trump administration from relaxing any sanction without Senate approval; only senators Rand Paul(R-Kentucky) and Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) voted against the measure.

But sanctions against Russia are also impositions on Germany, and something tells me that Germany will not act to impose similar measures as the U.S. Senate. The following article from Zero Hedge, shared by Mr. H.B., says why:

Germany, Austria Slam US Sanctions Against Russia, Warn Of Collapse In Relations

The first four paragraphs are worth pondering carefully:

Less than a day after the Senate overwhelmingly voted to impose new sanctions against the Kremlin, on Thursday Germany and Austria – two of Russia’s biggest energy clients in Europe – slammed the latest U.S. sanctions against Moscow, saying they could affect European businesses involved in piping in Russian natural gas.

Shortly after the Senate voted Wednesday to slap new sanctions on key sectors of Russia’s economy over “interference in the 2016 U.S. elections” and aggression in Syria and Ukraine, in a joint statement Austria’s Chancellor Christian Kern and Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it appeared that the Senate bill was aimed at securing US energy jobs and pushing out Russian gas deliveries to Europe.

Gabriel and Kern also accused the U.S. of having ulterior motives in seeking to enforce the energy blockade, which they said is trying to help American natural gas suppliers at the expense of their Russian rivals. And they warned the threat of fining European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project “introduces a completely new, very negative dimension into European-American relations.”

In their forceful appeal, the two officials urged the United States to back off from linking the situation in Ukraine to the question of who can sell gas to Europe. “Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America,” Kern and Gabriel said. The reason why Europe is angry Some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Ukraine, fear the loss of transit revenue if Russian gas supplies don’t pass through their territory anymore once the new pipeline is built.

While the diplomats said that it was important for Europe and the US to form a united front on the issue of Ukraine, “we can’t accept the threat of illegal and extraterritorial sanctions against European companies,” the two officials warned citing a section of the bill that calls for the United States to continue to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would pump Russian gas to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea.

Looked at from the context of my hypothesis that some sort of covert war has been taking place between the USA and Germany, the Senate measure is as much as a levying on sanctions on Germany as it is on Russia, and can be viewed – from a much longer historical perspective – as the continuation of British policy, first enunciated by Halford MacKinder, to prevent any alliance of German industry with Russian resources, the “nightmare scenario” of the late nineteenth early-twentieth century geopoliticians. Indeed, I am not the only one thinking and seeing things this way, for the Austrian Chancellor and German Foreign Minister have said as much when they stated “We can’t accept the threat of illegal and extraterritorial sanctions against European companies.”

In other words, Europe may have just signaled that the days of Washington imposing economic policies on everyone else are over.

Washington’s heavy-handedness with Russia, coupling the sanctions to the Ukraine, is having diametrically the opposite geopolitical effect than what is needed: it is driving Germany, and hence Europe, away, and this is geopolitical folly of a very high order: if the current BRICSA Bloc – India, China, Russia in particular – is a bloc we need to be cautious about, adding Germany and Europe to that mix is geopolitical and economic suicide, for it’s the creation of a unipolar bloc that the USA simply cannot oppose. Then, for good measure, add Japan to that mix, and one sees that current American foreign policy is living in a world of Brezinskian folly, which we may define as geopolitical make believe.  We are driving our most powerful allies away, and replacing them with…

…well, no one.

On this one, the Trump Administration’s stance makes much more long term geopolitical sense; it’s time to quit demonizing Russia, because whether we like it or not, Russia is a key pivot point in the current geopolitical situation. We may never be friends, but to keep slamming the door in Russia’s face serves no one, and the Germans are well aware of it

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.