Friday, March 22, 2019

Trump “dossier” creator Christopher Steele BACKING OFF claims prez is linked to RUSSIA as he faces libel lawsuit


by JD Heyes, The Common Sense Show:

Former British spy Christopher Steele, the man behind the drafting of the now-infamous “Trump dossier,” once confidently proclaimed that our president was so inextricably linked to Russian government figures that Vladimir Putin himself could drop a dime on Donald J. Trump anytime he wanted.

Steele also claimed that Trump aides were part of some vast conspiracy with Moscow to “steal the election” from Hillary Clinton, someone who Putin reportedly despised so much he’d do anything to see her lose.

But now, as Steele is forced to defend himselfagainst charges of slander and libel for things he wrote in the dossier — that was subsequently published by Buzzfeed — he doesn’t appear to be quite so confident in his earlier claims.

As in, he doesn’t sound like a man who continues to believe what he wrote a year ago.

As reported by The Washington Times, once upon a time Steele “matter-of-factly” stated in the dossier that there was collusion between Team Trump and Team Moscow. But some months later in court, he now claims that such collusion was only “possible.”

This all takes on added importance now as Republicans close in on discovering whether the bogus dossier for which nothing contained within has been verified was used by anti-Trump elements within the FBI and Justice Department to obtain a FISA court warrant to spy on the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign last year. (Related: REVEALED: The FBI plot to overthrow the presidency and commit organized TREASON in America.)

Steele’s unsubstantiated garbage was further spread by the Democrat-aligned opposition research firm that hired Steele — Fusion GPS. Also, the Times noted, Steele once boasted to Mother Jones magazine he was the one who started Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation by convincing the FBI last summer that his dossier was real.

And of course, we now also know that the dossier was bought and paid for by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. Nothing odd or weird about that, right?

In any event, now that Steele has to defend his allegations in court, “his confidence level has shifted down several notches,” the Times noted.

As The National Sentinel reported in April, Steele was upset when Buzzfeed published the dossier in January, probably because he knew then it was all BS. Though the so-called “mainstream” media ignored it, Steele also seemed at the time to repudiate the dossier when he acknowledged in court filings that at least some of the allegations contained in the document were unverified.

In his dossier, Steele claimed without a hint of reservation that an “extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin” existed. He wrote that as a hotel builder and entrepreneur, Trump was involved in an eight-year partnership with Russian intelligence that dated back long before his presidential campaign, the Times noted.

During that alleged relationship, both sides traded information.

One of Steele’s memos even claimed that the Kremlin had compiled so much financial and personal information about Trump and his businesses that the Kremlin could blackmail him at any time (a claim that actually makes more sensewhen applied to Hillary Clinton).

The Times noted further:

He wrote that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, and a campaign volunteer, Carter Page, in tandem orchestrated the campaign with Moscow to meddle in the race. He also maintained that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s attorney, traveled to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal staff and orchestrate a cover-up of the campaign’s hacking conspiracy.

All of those charges have been denied, and none has been confirmed publicly by a press leak or congressional inquiry.

Now that he’s in court, Steele is changing his tune — a lot.

Read More @

Happy Kwanzaa! The Holiday Brought to You by the FBI


by Ann Coulter, The Burning Platform:

Kwanzaa, celebrated exclusively by white liberals, is a fake holiday invented in 1966 by black radical/FBI stooge Ron Karenga — aka Dr. Maulana Karenga, founder of United Slaves, the violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves.

In what was ultimately a foolish gambit, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better. (It’s the same function MSNBC and CNN serve today.)

By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. The United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (I will not be shooting any Black Panthers this week because I am Kwanza-reform, and we are not that observant.)

It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public school teachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize Nigerian newspapers that claimed that certain American black radicals were CIA operatives. Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”


In a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department” and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. did not “eliminate unreasonable doubt” — an interesting standard of proof.)

Now we know the truth: The FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police. Whether Karenga was a willing FBI dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear.

In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot two Black Panthers to death on the UCLA campus: Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as the chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University at Long Beach.

(Speaking of which, Rep. Paul Ryan certainly is right about what a fantastic job his mentor Jack Kemp did reaching out to all those “socially conservative” minorities. Look at how California has swung decisively to the right since Kemp started all that outreach stuff. Good luck winning California now, Democrats!)

Back to the esteemed Cal State professor: Karenga’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another invention of the Worst Generation.

In 1974, Patty Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snakehead stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani. These are the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa. (And here’s something interesting: Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)

Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life — economics, work, personality. It takes a village to raise a police snitch. When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites.

While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” (is that the mass murder, the imprisonment of homosexuals or the forced labor?), Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.”

There’s an inclusive philosophy for you!

Read More @

Election 2018 Russia: Vladimir Putin Versus the Muppets


by Phil Butler, New Eastern Outlook:

The globalists running the show in Washington will stop at nothing to prevent Vladimir Putin from becoming Russia’s president in 2018. They cannot stop, for it they do the liberal world order will certainly wither and die. Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s right-hand man, only a few days ago pointed out how the U.S. is trying to use sanctions to alienate Russian oligarchs against Mr. Putin. But Russia’s top businessmen knew better than to trust Washington all along. Serious Russians never rely on Muppet Show antics.

What kind of promise can the new liberal order offer the men and women who control Russia’s vast riches, in order to deliver privatized control of those enormous riches to the likes of the Rothschilds and their American contemporaries? In all honesty, I feel ridiculous even asking such a question. The uncompromising greed and stupidity of ousted Russian billionaires like Yukos oil’s Mikhael Khodorovsy, the underboss of Rothschild/Russia, is warning enough there’s nothing at all to be gained from betraying Russia and Putin. Now that I think about it, just what kind of idiot does it take to give up everything at the behest of vampire bankers in the west? I think I know the answer.

My dear departed Mom always used to repeat the popular phrase; “Birds of a feather, flock together,” when she caught me hanging out with morons. And I’ve come to the conclusion after studying all the eastern and western oligarchs on Earth, America has the dumbest of the dumb, and the most arrogant slash narcissistic business people. Don’t take my word for it, read this interview with the Russian mafioso Khodorovsy from November on Chief Executive. The magazine’s Jeff Cunningham speaks of the Yukos oil pirate as if Kodorovsy was some Titan of business strategy – a hardworking business genius that turned around a dying company. As the lead to his story on the man I call “Killer Khodorovsy”, the former Forbes publisher and wannabe technocrat describes Putin’s worst enemy thus:

“Mikhail Khodorkovsky is the former CEO of Russian oil company Yukos, a company that was seriously in debt when he took over 1997. He transformed Yukos into the country’s second-largest oil producer, and by 2003 he was the richest man in the country.”

Anyone who reads NEO knows this is a bold-faced lie. Khodorkovsky was backed by Rothschild and others to become chief privateer of Russian energy assets after during the Yeltsin era feeding frenzy. And if we look at who stands behind Jeff Cunningham, who was technology adviser to Schroders Ventures global asset management, and one of crazy Senator John McCain’s henchmen as part of Arizona State University’s McCain Institute, a geopolitical think tank, then we find nearly all the liberal order’s evil villains. What distinguishes Cunningham for me is his being in the upper crust of journalists, which eliminates any possibility he is simply mistaken about Khodorovsy. Therefore, I said he’s a “bold-faced” liar. The Yukos mess is well documented by now, so it’s time we return to our theme. The truth of Khodorkovsky and fellow ousted oil oligarch Boris Berezovsky, is that they were backed to essentially steal Russia’s energy wealth for the globalists. One of the reasons Vladimir Putin is vilified by corporate western media today is because he wrested back control of Russia’s energy wealth from British and American bankers. And this is the reason we see the same media and corporations backing these ousted oligarchs.

Back to the use of sanctions to “lever” Putin out, the US introduced sanctions against Moscow in 2014 when the country re-united with Crimea and the conflict in Ukraine began. These useless restrictions have since expanded, to include individuals, companies and whole branches of the Russian economy, not to mention myriad petty distractions instituted by Washington. In layman’s terms, the wild-eyed liberalist order has thrown everything at Putin “including” the kitchen sink. And they’ve failed miserably at every turn. Instead of destroying Putin’s administration, western sanctions and other strategies have only served to strengthen his government. Meanwhile, in the west society is in meltdown mode with miserable distractions from NFL protests and revising Confederate history to the sodomite orgy that Hollywood, media, and politics have become.

In this nightmarish new America, Putin critics like military industrialist John McCain ride in a metaphorical motorcycle side car driven by Putin enemies and weirdos like Masha Gessen. Cutting the figure of “Beaker” from the Muppet Show, Gessen is an iconic symbol of just how screwed up America has become. Hiding her own insanity underneath the popular guise of outspoken Putin critic, Gessen leverages a pseudointellectual costume of a journalist who tracks the toxic legacy of the Soviet era. She veils her unconcealable pain as a vehement vociferousness over a Putin Russia she says is dead set against any hope for a liberal, democratic, law-bound Russia. Reading her venomous malarkey, it makes me think Gessen is nothing more than an educated Pussy Riot singer. She’s used a high-powered intellect and misdirected passion to foster such terms as Homo Sovieticus, in order to classify poor pitiful Ruskies too dumb and brainwashed to escape a U.S.S.R. mentality. A Russian using such a term to dehumanize her own people!!! Well, it’s just psychotic nasty. Gessen’s Homo Sovieticus, Hillary Clinton’s Trump Deplorables, contrasted with Barack Obama’s Exceptionals – it’s all sickeningly familiar. And it’s Putin who’s the Stalin-like or Hitler-like dictator? Sometimes I feel sorry for Putin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov for his having to deal with hordes of batshit crazy westerners. I know the morning briefing has to begin and end with vein busting laughter at the overnight news reports. Gessen or John McCain, neither one predict any future for a Putin led Russia. Meanwhile…

Read More @

Human Courage And Kindness Stand As Obstacles To The Void


by Brandon Smith, Alt Market:

Among liberty activists, there is a rather universal consensus on what ails our nation. We understand that there is a concerted and deliberate effort by the establishment to undermine individual rights and constitutional protections. We understand that there is a coordinated effort by international financiers to destabilize our economy and siphon wealth from the middle class until it shrivels up and dies. We understand that there is an organized plan to radicalize the public along ideological lines and pit them against each other. We understand that geopolitics and regional wars are exploited to distract us from underlying issues. There is not very much debate over these realities; the evidence is overwhelming.

However, there is constant disagreement among activists on solutions to these problems, and there are several reasons why this conflict persists. Let’s examine them…

Ease Versus Struggle

This is one conflict that I don’t think many people recognize or pay much attention to, but it stands as a key weakness that derails effective action. There is a distaste among some liberty activists for the idea of self sacrifice and struggle in achieving freedom. The reality is most fights are won through persistence and force of will; there are no shortcuts to defeating tyranny. There are no secret weapons.  There is only indomitable spirit. That’s it. It doesn’t matter if you have a movement of 100 people or 100 million — any goal is achievable, but only so long as you accept the cost of pain and sacrifice required.

In my years working in the movement I have seen hundreds of poorly conceived silver bullet “solutions” rise to prominence and then fail or disappear entirely. In every case there is a period of overblown excitement while practical strategies are completely ignored. A perfect example would be the current love affair among a subculture of activists with cryptocurrencies. The concept of rebellion on a virtual level is certainly alluring to those who fear real world work and a real world fight. A fantasy of defeating the establishment with ease appeals to those who fear struggle. This is something the powers-that-be take full advantage of.

To defeat concerted technocratic centralization requires nothing less than a willingness to risk everything without the promise of reward. The sooner people realize that there is no easy path to a freer society, the sooner we can act effectively.

Thinking In The Present Versus Thinking Ahead

One truth that I consistently try to point out to activists is that they may never see the benefits of the fighting they do today. They must fight with the expectation that they will not see the light at the end of the tunnel. Successful freedom fighters do not necessarily fight for themselves so much as they fight for the next generation. They fight so that their children can live without tyranny, not only so they can live without tyranny. This idea seems to bewilder some activists, and I blame this on the self serving nature of our society and its addiction to immediate gratification. Even among the best of us, there is a tendency to only plan in the now and seek solutions in the now.

Real rebellion requires long term tactics. Deeply rooted tyrannies are whittled down over time, sometimes over the course of multiple generations. They are not defeated overnight.

Optimism Versus Nihilism

I have seen many liberty analysts attacked as “doom and gloomers,” but this accusation is usually wielded by ignorant people with little understanding of how freedom movements function. They do not function on “doom” or “fear porn,” but on a healthy dose of reality coupled with the optimistic philosophy that knowledge is power. What the skeptics do not grasp is that we work to comprehend the intricacies of a crisis because we have enough optimism to foresee that the crisis can be stopped, or that something better can be built.

We are not “doom and gloomers,” we are actually issuing a rallying cry, because we know that “doom” can in fact be averted.

The real “doom and gloomers” are actually the nihilists — the people that blindly dismiss the possibility of victory. These are the people that do not want to hear about strategies or solutions; they only seek to criticize because they do not have the intelligence to offer up a solution of their own. These are the people who are constantly saying “Yeah, you’ve told us about the problem, but what are YOU going to do about it,” when they should be asking themselves “What am I going to do about it?”

Isolation Versus Community

This is perhaps the defining argument of my years as an analysts and macro-economist, and it is something I continue to fight for to this day. The greatest weakness within the liberty movement and in America as a whole, in my opinion, is the refusal to take the necessity of community seriously. Whether it be because of laziness (ease), because of paranoia or because of too much exposure to Hollywood fantasies of the survival world, many people have adopted the philosophy that preparation for crisis is best done in isolation. In other words, the “lone wolf” mentality.

In almost every historic or modern societal collapse on record, it has been organized communities of people with necessary skill sets that have had the most success in survival. And, it is these communities that offer the most dangerous threat to oligarchies. So, the question becomes, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you seek to survive? Then community is the best possible option. Do you seek to fight back against the encroachment of authoritarianism? Then numerous voluntary communities prepared for disaster are the best weapon.

Does the nail that stands up get hammered down? Possibly. But without community, you ensure that you will always be a nail, and never the hammer. Isolated preparedness is a recipe for failure.

Localization Versus Centralization

As much as liberty activists rail against the problem of centralization, they tend to fall victim to their own centralization schemes. Community only matters when it is VOLUNTARY and within arms reach. This means that internet based communities, while encouraging because they can reveal our true numbers and make us feel as though we are not alone, also tend to centralize our activism within a false framework, isolating us more than uniting us.

A web based community is not a community, just as a web based solution is not a solution. If you are not utilizing the web in part as a tool to build localized community in the real world, or a localized economy in the real world, then you are wasting your time with web activism.

What internet activism does do, unfortunately, is give people a false sense of security, and it prevents them from pursuing real community in the place they live. I have heard on thousands of occasions from activist who claim that “no one around them is awake and aware;” they claim they are alone in the midst of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. This is nonsense. In every part of the country I have found liberty-minded people in droves, often all in the same town or city within easy driving distance. And, the people who claim they are alone are usually the people who have never tried to look, or to organize. Why? Because that’s hard work, and their virtual community on the internet is so much easier.

The Source Of All Freedom

Beyond the internalized conflicts within liberty movements, there is a defining methodology at stake. The gravitational pull that strengthens communities, the fuel that drives optimism and a respect for the future, the thing that makes us all more than what we seem to be on the surface, the thing that
catches authoritarians off guard, is our propensity for courage and human kindness. Without these two things, any fight against tyranny is destined to implode.

Endeavor requires risk, and all risk requires courage (or perhaps stupidity, but courage can often be mistaken as stupidity). The greatest endeavor in the history of mankind is the endeavor to live free. This is one of the few things in the world actually worth fighting or dying for.  It only follows that such a fantastic goal would require ultimate risk.

Courage is the willingness to take risks while knowing full well the consequences of failure. In some cases, courage means taking action while knowing that there will be consequences even in success. Sometimes, there are no benefits to the courageous beyond the knowledge that they have benefited others. The fight is not about profit. The fight is not about personal survival. The fight is about something much more.  Something difficult to define, but intuitively felt.

Read More @

Reflections on 2017 – A Personal Journey


by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:

2017 was a tumultuous and extremely binary year for a considerable number of Americans. For those who thought everything was going swimmingly during the Obama years, Trump’s election wasn’t simply a shock to the system, but an extinction level event for civilization that handed the U.S. government to bunch of Putin-controlled fascists. In stark contrast, Trump’s election was seen as divine deliverance by his devoted cheerleaders and red hat wearing obsessives. Finally, someone from outside the swamp had successfully trash-talked their way into the Presidency. As such, an imminent restoration of American greatness is all but assured.

Naturally, neither one of these perspectives is remotely accurate. They’re just distinct fairytales that quarreling groups of Americans have enthusiastically embraced within an increasingly insane and divided political environment. The societal pressure to self-segregate into either passionate support for “The Resistance” or “Trumpism” was overwhelming all year and has continued to this day. I recognized this early on, and wrote about it back in February.

Here’s an excerpt from that piece, Lost in the Political Wilderness:

I think the U.S. citizenry is being afflicted by a sort of mass insanity at the moment. There are no good outcomes if this continues. As a result, I feel compelled to provide a voice for those of us lost in the political wilderness. We must persevere and not be manipulated into the obvious and nefarious divide and conquer tactics being aggressively unleashed across the societal spectrum. If we lose our grounding and our fortitude, who will be left to speak for those of us who simply don’t fit into any of the currently ascendant political ideologies?

Little did I know it at the time, but the sentiments expressed in that piece, coupled with the four-part series on Spiral Dynamics that followed, would result in profound changes to my overall outlook on life and the evolution of this website.


Prior to 2017, I focused an extraordinary amount of my attention and energy on the destructive actions of others and had become obsessed with highlighting how much everything had degenerated in society. As such, I would frequently publish multiple posts per day in an attempt to get as much information as possible into the hands of readers. My own thoughts were published less often than many of you would’ve liked, as I spent a disproportionate amount of time reading news compared to personal reflection. As 2017 unfolded, I began to ask myself many questions about how I was spending my time. This culminated in the August post, Why Am I Doing This?

I wrote:

While understanding how the system works and identifying some particularly bad actors is very important, it’s not nearly enough. By spending so much thought and energy on the transgressions of others, I realized that I had done my part to contribute to the “outrage culture” which currently infects our political dialogue. Pointing fingers at others incessantly is what unconscious people do, which more conscious people inspire others to live up to their best nature. For years, I had been doing too much of the former, and not enough of the latter. That’s not to say there’s no value in calling out bad actors, I think there is. The point is that my content had become defined by a dangerous imbalance, and it was bad for me and bad for you.

To see what I mean, let’s take a step back in time. Upon seeing the government response to the financial crisis nearly a decade ago, I immediately knew that the country was headed for a very dangerous and tumultuous time. This realization left me with a sense of a mission to get out there and warn people about what was happening and the destructive implications that would inevitably follow. You simply cannot have elitist theft and corruption at the scale we witnessed in the post financial crisis era without major blowback. I figured that the most important thing I could do was explain how the entire economy and political paradigm had become a parasitic, criminal, systemic cancer. I figured if people “woke up” to reality and got upset about it, we could unify the public against oligarchy and implement true governance by the people, for the people. I was completely wrong.

People certainly got angry, but much of this anger was channeled toward the election of a narcissistic con man, who immediately handed his administration over to Wall Street, just as all his predecessors had before him. Even worse, the election of Trump has made it even easier to divide the public against one another, rather than against true power. The road we’re headed on right now doesn’t end well, and I’ve recognized the error of my ways.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, operating from a state of anger (or fear) will only result in very bad responses to our real problems. Calling reality as I see it is as important as ever, but merely trying to get people outraged will never get us to where we need to — as individuals or a nation.

In other words, while I recognize that outrage is often a necessary catalyst to significant social change, outrage alone is insufficient if you wish to tilt the odds toward a positive outcome. Change is a constant in this universe, but change can manifest in many different ways. I realized that if I wanted to see a better world, I needed to work on myself too.

It’s easy to focus on the flaws of others and obsessively call out the corrupt and unethical paradigm we live under. It’s much harder to focus on yourself and your own personal shortcomings. I realized that I, and many others, were too busy being outraged to see how our own individual actions were contributing to the increasing madness around us. Looking for an outside political or corporate savior to our problems is an insane approach and will lead to nothing good. We need to take personal responsibility for our actions and consciousness if we want to take the next step forward in our evolution as a species. Each and every one of us has a greater impact than we recognize on the world around us every single day with each and every interaction we have with one another.

Read More @



by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

There’s been a lot of hype on the internet lately concerning the limited hangout position of the Pentagon’s recent announcement of having conducted a UFO project at the request of former US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and concerning the announcement of former Blink 182 band member and UFO enthusiast Tom DeLonge’s corporation whose board looks like a Who’s Who of black projects research gurus. This comes at a time that Dr. Skidmore of Michigan State University has written articles confirming missing trillions of dollars from the US budget, confirming the statements of former US Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts. It’s convenient timing, to say the least.

Now, to add to the stories, there’s yet another, according to this article shared by Mr. J.S.:

The Pentagon’s Secret Search for UFOs

Now, I am calling all this a “limited hangout position” because of several statements, including this one:

The Pentagon, at the direction of Congress, a decade ago quietly set up a multimillion-dollar program to investigate what are popularly known as unidentified flying objects—UFOs.

The “unidentified aerial phenomena” claimed to have been seen by pilots and other military personnel appeared vastly more advanced than those in American or foreign arsenals. In some cases they maneuvered so unusually and so fast that they seemed to defy the laws of physics, according to multiple sources directly involved in or briefed on the effort and a review of unclassified Defense Department and congressional documents.(emphasis added)

Now, many in the UFOlogy community, including researcher Richard Dolan (see his multi-volume study UFOs and the National Security State) and many others, have argued persuasively and in my opinion quite convincingly and compellingly that these USO studies have in fact been a more or less permanent feature of covert American military interest and research since at least the end of World War Two. I too have contributed my own speculations to this picture with investigations of the funding mechanisms that would be needed for such a study, concluding that a hidden system of finance would be necessary both to insure a continual flow of money and to ensure continued secrecy. The purpose of the research in the long term was to acquire the technologies that would be able to emulate UFO performance and achieve parity or near parity with it. As a secondary objective, such research would have been seeking the origins – human or otherwise – of whomever was behind the UFO phenomenon.

Hence, the disclose of a project of a mere decade’s length and running into mere “multi-millions” is far short of what the UFOlogy community has been arguing for many decades. It is, if I may put it country simple, no big deal.

There’s yet another “twist” here that, again, upon examination, isn’t much of a twist:

The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, whose existence was not classified but operated with the knowledge of an extremely limited number of officials, was the brainchild of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who first secured the appropriation to begin the program in 2009 with the support of the late Senators Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), two World War II veterans who were similarly concerned about the potential national security implications, the sources involved in the effort said. The origins of the program, the existence of which the Pentagon confirmed on Friday, are being revealed publicly for the first time by POLITICO and the New York Times in nearly simultaneous reports on Saturday.

One possible theory behind the unexplained incidents, according to a former congressional staffer who described the motivations behind the program, was that a foreign power—perhaps the Chinese or the Russians—had developed next-generation technologies that could threaten the United States. (Emphases added)

Again, experienced researchers in UFOlogy have long known about the UFO programs of Russia and China, and it stands to reason those nations would view the UFO phenomenon in a similar way to the USA, i.e., as a national security threat. And it stands to reason their responses would be similar: develop deeply black research programs and financing mechanisms to investigate and emulate the technologies and performance of UFOs to parity or near parity.

What is odd here however, is the less than typical language used in the context of the Russian and Chinese assertions. In an age when Russia seems to have replaced the former conspiracy-central theories of Masons, Zionists, Bankers, and/or Jesuits and the Vatican in the conspiracy mongering of the the US deep state, one would have expected stronger language from a mouthpiece like Politico. Instead, we get the very suggestive sentence, “One possible theory behind the unexplained incidents… was that a foreign power – perhaps the Chinese or the Russians-had developed next-generation technologies that could threaten the United States.”(Emphases added) Why the subjunctive “perhaps” with the wonderfully ambiguous past perfect simple tense “had developed”? The statement leaves open the possibility of some other foreign power besides Russia and China actually achieving some sort of “next generation” technology, and having done so ina past whose terminus ante quem is left conveniently undefined…

…and as anyone might expect who has read my various books on that possibility, that statement caught my eye.

Read More @

Totalitarian Collectivism


from BATR:

Military/Intelligence/Security Complex Rules

When Harry Browne wrote and first published back on January 1, 1973 How to be Free in an Unfree World, few people realized just how much more difficult it would be to apply his rational lessons to a world completely gone mad in a rush to hasten Armageddon. Listening to Harry Browne back in 1980 at a monetary conference, the audience was eager to unlock the keys to attain financial security. Well, in the succeeding decades, most astute observers of the financial conditions have found a way to acquire, at least a modest degree of fiscal accomplishment.

Be that as it may, the level of personal security, much less the achievement of individual freedom seems to have escaped in a era where permanent war is the ultimate growth industry, intelligence gathering and behavioral forecasting is a prime objective and insecurity fear has become the greatest by-product of perpetual manufactured terrorism; is in stark contrast with the inspiring blueprint offered by Browne. Being free today requires being off the grid from the electronic matrix, while ignoring as much governmental authoritarianism as possible.

Today, all pretenses of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are abandoned in the quest to add to the all consuming military, intelligence and security society. Always avoided and seldom asked is the question: what exact benefit do the people of this country get out of this system that thrives on instability and chaos?

According to Business Insider, The US has 1.3 million troops stationed around the world — here are the major hotspots. “The US military has over 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 450,000 of them stationed overseas”. The State Department drafts the policy, the Department of Defense deploys the troops, the Defense contractors build and sell the weapons and the CIA overseas the drug smuggling operations. A sweet deal for the establishment.

Now what thinking patriotic American can say with a straight face that our country is safer under the empire than when our foreign policy was non-interventionist? Gallant CIA veterans like Michael Scheuer and Ray McGovern along with consistent voices of reason like Justin Raimondo and Prof. Michel Chossudovskyare considered obstacles for the Council of Foreign Relations blue blood establishment.

The CFR Neocon globalists have been the driving force behind the systematic march toward igniting World War III. Actually, under the Trump administration, the record of reversing this standard post WWII direction has not been encouraging. While sociopaths like Victoria Nuland were ousted from Foggy Bottom, and Dina H. Powell will be leaving her White House position this coming year, the presence of H. R. McMaster in control of the National Security Council is most disturbing.

Back at the beginning of the Trump administration in January 2017, Foreign Policy Magazine wrote on the SHADOW GOVERNMENT. The article, The Intelligence Community Faces Sharp Challenges, but No Crisis, presents a telling argument.

“The president-elect is entitled to be skeptical of intelligence reports and judgments, as are all policy officials. This is a familiar challenge for U.S. intelligence. A number of past presidents have chosen to ignore, challenge, or supplement from other sources the information delivered by our intelligence agencies. It is ultimately the responsibility of intelligence professionals and their new leaders to adapt to the next administration’s priorities, decision-making style, and the president-elect’s own preferences for learning about unfamiliar foreign events. The president-elect has not yet taken the oath of office, and there will be many opportunities for our intelligence agencies to build a relationship with him and demonstrate their worth. The incoming administration — which already includes a number of sophisticated intelligence consumers — will discover that our intelligence community, while not flawless, is essential in monitoring, contextualizing, and responding to fast-moving global events, and in coping with today’s exceptionally complex threat environment.”

Just how did the Intelligence Community adjust to the priorities and directives of President Trump? It should be evidently clear that The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community mostly operate to advance their own agendas, often in contradiction to that set forth by the businessman President.

The crisis in abuses by the Intelligence Community and the flagrant disregard of Constitutional Bill of Right protections have intensified with each succeeding year. An example of this reality cites The Electronic Frontier Foundation which offers their assessment on Surveillance Battles: 2017 in Review and the future impact of FISA Section 702.

“We are disappointed that Congress hasn’t prioritized having a transparent debate about how law enforcement and intelligence agencies should be using their spying authorities while also respecting Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. Sadly, as we approached the potential sunset of Section 702 at the end of the year with no consensus in sight, Congressional leadership punted by tacking a three week extension of Section 702 into a must-pass spending bill. The new deadline is January 19, 2017, and we hope that this time, Congress will use this opportunity to end warrantless, unconstitutional surveillance for good.”

Taking a longer historic view, Peter Van Buren warns in What We’ve Lost Since 9/11.

“It’s not that Americans are incorrect to be fearful and feel in need of protection. The main thing we need to protect ourselves against, however, is not the modest domestic threat from terrorists, but a new king, a unitary executive that has taken the law for its own, aided and abetted by the courts, supported by a powerful national security state, and unopposed by a riven and weakened Congress. Without a strong Bill of Rights to protect us — indeed, secure us — from the dangers of our own government, we will have gone full-circle to a Post-Constitutional America that shares much in common with the pre-constitutional British colonies. 

Yet there is no widespread, mainstream movement of opposition to what the government has been doing. It seems, in fact, that many Americans are willing to accept, perhaps even welcome out of fear, the death of the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time”.

Missing in this partial observation is the nature of the shadow state that supersedes any particular administration. The continual and permanent bureaucracies of careerists are collectively more powerful than any Presi
dent. Next go beyond the mere agency departments and examine the deep underbelly of the intelligence apparatus that forms the phantom governance, which embodies real power.

The “IC” colossus incorporates the high tech mega corporatists, many of which were originated, funded and directed by the NSA and CIA. With the progression of technology exploding in the post human age, the millennium of the machine does not respond well to Freedom of Information (FOIA) filings. Even if the original intent of the FOIA were fulfilled, what exactly can be done to turn off the juice to the servers in this electronic cloud?

When the military offers citizenship to undocumented illegal’s if they enlist in the armed forces of the New World Order, how is it possible to reign in the U.S. global hegemony? An evaluation of How Does U.S. Military Compare to Russia, China and North Korea concludes.

 “Russia and China bit back Tuesday against Trump’s charges that they “challenge American power, influence and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity” and were “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”

Keep the chaos threat alive seems to work even when your own country maintains garrison bases throughout the entire globe. Sadly, Donald Trump has not committed to a true America First foreign policy in the tradition of our most enlightened leaders.

The government of the defunct Republic is wholly in the hands of globalist traitors. The nefarious cabal of Intelligence Community plotters serves a cartel of un-American supremacists. As long as dual loyalists remain in control of government policy, the deep state will neutralize any attempt to reset our authentic national interests.

The inability to mobilize the general public to force a purge of the existing order is a direct result of the brainwashing from the popular culture, the fake news from the lamestream media and the libtard indoctrinated socialization from government schools.

Read More @

Five things professors actually said in 2017


from Campus Reform:

  • Most Americans expect college professors to be beacons of knowledge and wisdom, or at least to exercise more maturity than their teenage students
  • Some faculty members, however, insist on making outrageous, preposterous, and downright absurd remarks in their classrooms and on social media, particularly since the election of Donald Trump.

Most Americans expect college professors to be beacons of knowledge and wisdom, or at least to exercise more maturity than their teenage students.

Every year, however, Campus Reform comes across professors who unashamedly make outrageous, preposterous, and downright absurd remarks in their classrooms and on social media, denigrating conservatives and their viewpoints.

In 2017, President Trump’s first year in the Oval Office brought academic rage to new heights as professors frequently blasted the Commander-in-Chief and berated his voters, traditional conservatives, and anyone who does not embrace progressivism.

Here are five things that professors actually said in 2017:

1) Prof suggests Texans deserve hurricane for supporting Trump

A University of Tampa professor was so upset about the outcome of the 2016 presidential election that he publicly suggested that Texans deserved Hurricane Harvey because the state voted Republican last year.

“I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas,” Professor Ken Storey tweeted in August. “Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them.”

Shortly after the controversial remarks, the university announced that it had fired the professor.

2) Prof says House GOP ‘should be lined up and shot’

An Art Institute of Washington professor was so furious about the House GOP’s effort to repeal and replace Obamacare that he said GOP lawmakers “should be lined up and shot” for their actions.

“They should be lined up and shot,” Professor John Griffin wrote on his Facebook page. “That’s not hyperbole; blood is on their hands.”

3) Prof calls whites ‘inhuman assholes,’ says ‘let them die’

In June, Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams made national headlines after appearing to suggest that the first responders should have let the victims of the congressional shooting “fucking die” because they are white.

“It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system. #LetThemFuckingDie,” Williams wrote in a Facebook post, including the hashtag as an apparent reference to an op-ed with the same title that he had shared two days earlier.

Following his controversial remarks, Williams was placed on leave but is slated to return to teaching in 2018.

4) Prof says Otto Warmbier ‘got exactly what he deserved’

A University of Delaware professor claimed that Otto Warmbier, a young American who died after being held in a North Korean prison camp, “got exactly what he deserved.”

Professor Katherine Dettwyler made her remarks on her personal Facebook page and in the comments section of an article published by National Review.

Dettwyler maintained that Warmbier behaved like a “spoiled, naive, arrogant U.S. college student who never had to face the consequences of his actions” when he visited North Korea, and that he had a “typical mindset of a lot of the young, white, rich, clueless males” she teaches.

Read More @

Will Commodity Prices Reverse Course and Head Higher Soon? – Gary Christenson (27/12/2017)


by Gary Christenson, Sprott Money:

The factories and people of the world need commodities, crude oil, copper, nickel, coffee, wheat and others.

But listening to the media, we might think paper stocks, bonds (debt) and Bitcoin are all that matter. Think about it…after a quick trip to your favorite coffee shop, while you enjoy a coffee and muffin, and watch a video on your smartphone, check the prices for your favorite tech stocks, Bitcoin, and the latest celebrity news.

Your trip to the coffee shop used gasoline, oil, coffee, sugar, wheat, electricity, water and others. You used commodities but Bitcoin, a ten year Treasury note, and Facebook stock were not directly necessary for your morning coffee experience.

Have digital and debt based paper “assets” crowded out common sense and the importance of commodities? Yes, but not for long.

Look at the graphs of Netflix and Amazon stocks. Yes, they might rise farther, but at what risk?

Both charts show near vertical rises, highly over-bought monthly Relative Strength Indexes (RSI) and could easily drop 30 – 70%. The NASDAQ 100 Index dropped 84% from its year 2000 high before it hit a nasty bottom. It could happen again.


We need them for our trip to the coffee shop and to feed, house, cloth, transport, heat and cool over seven billion people. We may not need the latest Apple phone (about a thousand U.S. dollars) but we do need commodities.

The Thomas/Reuters Commodity Index dates back to about 2001. Crude oil prices are a significant portion of any Commodity Index and are a long-term proxy for commodity prices.

Read More @

Guest Post: A Look Ahead To 2018 from James Gibson


by James Gibson, TF Metals:

With all the recent talk of the death of the petrodollar, and the rise of the petroyuan, with the possibility of the Chinese yuan eventually assuming the mantle of the world’s premier reserve currency, I thought that Turdites might be interested in an extract from my book: FROM WEST TO EASTThe Greatest Transfer of Power and Wealth in the History of Mankind

This particular subject matter is covered in greater detail in the book, particularly the pros and cons, but it should give Turdites a flavour of what might lie further down the road, as the global dominance of financial and economic power gradually passes from the USA to China.

I have thought about producing a second edition of my book, updating it by incorporating recent developments, but decided against it, because predictions made in the book are now increasingly beginning to unfold, and I wish the contents of the book to stand, and going forward, recognized as being prescient.

For those Turdites that have not yet purchased the book, I believe it is a worthwhile purchase, as it becomes more relevant by the month, and ties together many apparently diverse and seemingly unconnected events, which are shown to very much linked, and part of a very carefully prepared, long term plan to create a One World Currency, and a One World Government. But a world which none of us would willingly choose to adopt.

The Chinese-Russian bloc have regularly lobbied the G20 since 2008, to have them agree to, and draw up, the basis for sweeping reforms to the current international financial system. Such reforms should not only address the symptoms, but also the root causes of the current, challenging, financial and economic problems being faced by the world, which includes the acceptance of a multipolar world, rather than the current USA dominated unipolar world. The USA obviously strenuously seeks to maintain and defend the current status quo.

In my opinion, it is not worth worrying about events over which one has no control. However, the book should provide food for thought as to how one might minimise any negative impacts, and perhaps enable people to come out ahead, particularly if one is prepared to keep an open mind, and think globally. The relevant extract from the book now follows:

The Expansion of the Special Drawing Rights’ Role Appears Convenient to Both West and East

The Chinese have all the necessary building blocks in place to support a new international financial system independent of the US dollar. They have worked extremely hard, and since 2008 with increased intensity, to reach their current position.
The Chinese focus is now on promoting the internationalisation of the yuan, establishing an oil futures exchange priced in yuan, and refining their various financial systems and institutions so as to be in a position to provide a seamless international financial platform across the full spectrum.

All things considered, it is highly likely that the Chinese preference would be to have more time to refine and bed in their financial systems in an orderly manner. However, bearing in mind the current fragile state of the international financial system, and the increasing Second Cold War tensions, circumstances might well overtake them, necessitating a baptism by fire.
At this point in time, there are two types of SDR: the O-SDR (“O” stands for Official and is only traded between national central banks), and the recently reintroduced M-SDR (“M” stands for Market, for trading on the open financial markets). The M-SDR has recently been reintroduced for use as an investment vehicle in the form of bonds initially available in the Chinese market. These bonds will be purchased with yuan, and upon maturity, they will be settled in yuan.

China’s renminbi/yuan officially became a component of the basket of currencies that are used to value the SDR on 1 October 2016. The SDR currency weightings are now as follows:

• The US dollar has a 41.73 percent weighting.
• The euro has a 30.93 percent weighting.
• The Chinese renminbi/yuan has a 10.92 percent weighting.
• The Japanese yen has an 8.33 percent weighting.
• The pound sterling has an 8.09 percent weighting.

It is important for the reader to realise that the SDR is just another fiat currency. It has no backing whatsoever other than the faith and confidence in the financial standing of the IMF. The involvement and weighting of the five currencies mentioned above is solely to provide a mechanism for the calculation of the SDR’s value in the foreign exchange markets. Just like any other fiat currency, it is created out of thin air.

A   2009 article written by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the PBOC (Peoples Bank of China) , was posted on the official PBOC website, in both Chinese and English, in which he called for a sweeping overhaul of the global monetary system. In that article he stated:
The price is becoming increasingly high, not only for the users, but also for the issuers of the reserve currencies. Although crisis may not necessarily be an intended result of the issuing authorities, it is an inevitable outcome of the institutional flaws.
Special consideration should be given to giving the SDR a greater role. The SDR has the features and potential to act as a super sovereign reserve currency.

This indicates to the writer that China has no aspirations to see the yuan replace the US dollar in the role of the world’s premier reserve currency, because the “price is becoming increasingly high,” and suggests that in China’s opinion, the SDR is best suited to the role of the world’s premier reserve currency, because the IMF has no trade deficit or surplus.

SDR policies and strategy would be driven solely by its role as a reserve currency, whereas the US Fed is continually conflicted as to its US dollar strategy, as it impacts both domestic and international markets. What is good for the US domestic market can be detrimental to the international market and vice versa. Using the SDR would eliminate any such conflict and seems a pragmatic solution, but there are cons as well as pros, as will be highlighted shortly.

Read More @

Watch: How to Easily Open Deadbolts and Handcuffs in Real Life


by Justin King, The Anti Media:

You never know when an emergency will happen. Sometimes an emergency requires you to open something that typically needs to remain locked. Here’s how to do it easily and quickly.

The method depicted below is called “raking”. Most standard lockpick sets will have the “Bogota Rake” being used in the video. Raking is much easier than “picking” a lock. The techniques are very different but accomplish the same thing.

Remember if you do this while in police custody, you’re greatly increasing your chances of being shot. In most states, simply opening the handcuffs while in custody will increase your sentence length. This is shown for emergency purposes in case of kidnapping.

Read More @