Similar Threads
Whats your best money management method? 52 replies
How to flow with the order flow? 26 replies
Money Management / Risk Management 24 replies
Money management model for multiple strategy trading method 16 replies
Most popular money management method. 7 replies
- Post #9,221
- Quote
- Oct 8, 2020 10:20pm Oct 8, 2020 10:20pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,222
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 12:16am Oct 9, 2020 12:16am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
Inserted Video
- Post #9,223
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 12:43am Oct 9, 2020 12:43am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ops+to+zero%29
Via Off-Guardian.org,
If you believe in academic freedom, as well as free speech overall, please consider signing this petition, and sharing it with others who believe that higher education must be free from censorship of any kind, whether by the state, corporations, foreign interests, pressure groups, or by the university itself.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...-2000x900.jpeg
A full professor in NYU’s Department of Media, Culture and Communication (since 1997), and a recipient of fellowships from the Rockefeller, Guggenheim and Ingram Merrill Foundations, Prof. Miller teaches a course on propaganda, focusing not only on the history of modern propaganda, but - necessarily - on propaganda drives ongoing at the time.
The aim is to teach students to identify such drives for what they are, think carefully about their claims, seek out whatever data and/or arguments have been blacked out or misreported to protect those claims from contradiction, and look into the interests financing and managing the propaganda, so as to figure out its purpose.
On Sept. 20, after a class discussion of the case for universal masking as defense against transmission of SARS-COV-2 (in which discussion she did not participate), a student took to Twitter to express her fury that Prof. Miller had brought up the randomized, controlled tests - all of those so far conducted on the subject - finding that masks and ventilators are ineffective at preventing such transmission, because the COVID-19 virions are too small for such expedients to block them.
Prof. Miller urged the students to read those studies, as well as others that purport to show the opposite, with due attention to the scientific reviews thereof, and possible financial links between the researchers conducting them, and such interests as Big Pharma and the Gates Foundation. Prof. Miller followed up by providing the links to the former studies (not easily found on Google, though they have all appeared in reputable medical journals), and other materials, including a video of a debate on the subject.
The student was so outraged by Prof. Miller even mentioning those studies that she called on NYU to fire him:
Having contacted NYU’s bias response line to report him, and getting no satisfaction there, the student kept on tweeting her demand for Prof. Miller’s termination, due to his “unhealthy amount of skepticism around health professionals,” and a range of other posts that she had seen on News from Underground, Prof. Miller’s website, and found no less insidious, misreporting that their sources were “many far right and conspiracy websites,” and therefore, evidently, not worth reading.
The student’s call provoked a storm of tweets, many attacking her, and others thanking her - one of which was posted by Prof. Miller’s department chair, promising to act on her demand:
"Julia, thank you for reporting this issue. We as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.”
Soon after this pledge of institutional support, the dean of NYU’s Steinhardt School (in which Prof. Miller teaches), together with a doctor who advises them on COVID-19 policy, emailed each of Prof. Miller’s students (without putting him on copy), starting with a ritual nod to “academic freedom,” then hinting that the studies noted in that class were dangerous misinformation. To set them straight, the two advised the students to consult the “authoritative” CDC—specifically, its list of several recent studies finding that masks are effective against COVID-19.
(That the CDC itself, as well as Dr. Fauci, had, until April, publicly adhered to the consensus of those “dangerous” studies went unmentioned.) The two concluded with a stern reminder that the students are obliged to mask on campus (although Prof. Miller had made quite clear that he was not suggesting that they break NYU’s rule, which he observes himself.)
Thus that student’s tweets immediately prompted NYU to take her side, and several media outlets to attack Prof. Miller for his dissidence, without interviewing him. The following week, NYU followed up by urging him to cancel his propaganda course next term, and, instead, teach two sections of his course on cinema. Their rationale was that it would be “better for the department,” because enrollment in the latter course is always high; but then so are the enrollments for Prof. Miller’s propaganda course, which has earned the highest praises from its students.
For testimonials from Prof. Miller’s students click here.
Below is the text change.org petition, you can sign it here.
We the undersigned support the academic freedom of Prof. Mark Crispin Miller, now under siege at New York University for urging students in his propaganda course to read scientific literature on the effectiveness of masks against transmission of COVID-19.
We see his situation as but one example of a growing global trend toward rigid censorship of expert views on urgent subjects of all kinds; so this petition is not just in his defense, but a protest on behalf of all professors, doctors, scientists and journalists who have been gagged, or punished for their rights to freely research, study, and interpret data on a variety of matters regardless of their controversial nature.
Censorship is nothing new. We have been edging toward it ever more for decades, as both academia and the media have long discouraged free investigation and discussion of urgent public questions of all kinds, as those who would attempt to tackle them empirically have been slandered as “conspiracy theorists” or “truthers” and other slurs deployed to shut them up, or purge them as purveyors of “misinformation,” “fake science” or “hate speech.”
Such censorship has blocked the sort of open, civil, reasoned give-and-take without which higher education—indeed, any education—is impossible, as is scientific progress overall.
We see Prof. Miller’s situation as a flashpoint in the struggle not just to reclaim but to protect free speech and free inquiry. NYU officials have no right to intervene in Prof. Miller’s courses or message his students surreptitiously undermining his integrity as an instructor.
They have no right to deprive him of the courses he was hired to teach and they should not join in a public smear campaign against the very rights they should uphold at a university.
That so stated, we urge that NYU respect his academic freedom, and thereby set a good example for all other schools with faculty who dare contest official narratives. Otherwise, “education” there will be mere training for compliance, stunting students’ minds instead of opening them - a practice fatal to democracy, and, finally, to humanity itself.
Via Off-Guardian.org,
If you believe in academic freedom, as well as free speech overall, please consider signing this petition, and sharing it with others who believe that higher education must be free from censorship of any kind, whether by the state, corporations, foreign interests, pressure groups, or by the university itself.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...-2000x900.jpeg
A full professor in NYU’s Department of Media, Culture and Communication (since 1997), and a recipient of fellowships from the Rockefeller, Guggenheim and Ingram Merrill Foundations, Prof. Miller teaches a course on propaganda, focusing not only on the history of modern propaganda, but - necessarily - on propaganda drives ongoing at the time.
The aim is to teach students to identify such drives for what they are, think carefully about their claims, seek out whatever data and/or arguments have been blacked out or misreported to protect those claims from contradiction, and look into the interests financing and managing the propaganda, so as to figure out its purpose.
On Sept. 20, after a class discussion of the case for universal masking as defense against transmission of SARS-COV-2 (in which discussion she did not participate), a student took to Twitter to express her fury that Prof. Miller had brought up the randomized, controlled tests - all of those so far conducted on the subject - finding that masks and ventilators are ineffective at preventing such transmission, because the COVID-19 virions are too small for such expedients to block them.
Prof. Miller urged the students to read those studies, as well as others that purport to show the opposite, with due attention to the scientific reviews thereof, and possible financial links between the researchers conducting them, and such interests as Big Pharma and the Gates Foundation. Prof. Miller followed up by providing the links to the former studies (not easily found on Google, though they have all appeared in reputable medical journals), and other materials, including a video of a debate on the subject.
The student was so outraged by Prof. Miller even mentioning those studies that she called on NYU to fire him:
Having contacted NYU’s bias response line to report him, and getting no satisfaction there, the student kept on tweeting her demand for Prof. Miller’s termination, due to his “unhealthy amount of skepticism around health professionals,” and a range of other posts that she had seen on News from Underground, Prof. Miller’s website, and found no less insidious, misreporting that their sources were “many far right and conspiracy websites,” and therefore, evidently, not worth reading.
The student’s call provoked a storm of tweets, many attacking her, and others thanking her - one of which was posted by Prof. Miller’s department chair, promising to act on her demand:
"Julia, thank you for reporting this issue. We as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.”
Soon after this pledge of institutional support, the dean of NYU’s Steinhardt School (in which Prof. Miller teaches), together with a doctor who advises them on COVID-19 policy, emailed each of Prof. Miller’s students (without putting him on copy), starting with a ritual nod to “academic freedom,” then hinting that the studies noted in that class were dangerous misinformation. To set them straight, the two advised the students to consult the “authoritative” CDC—specifically, its list of several recent studies finding that masks are effective against COVID-19.
(That the CDC itself, as well as Dr. Fauci, had, until April, publicly adhered to the consensus of those “dangerous” studies went unmentioned.) The two concluded with a stern reminder that the students are obliged to mask on campus (although Prof. Miller had made quite clear that he was not suggesting that they break NYU’s rule, which he observes himself.)
Thus that student’s tweets immediately prompted NYU to take her side, and several media outlets to attack Prof. Miller for his dissidence, without interviewing him. The following week, NYU followed up by urging him to cancel his propaganda course next term, and, instead, teach two sections of his course on cinema. Their rationale was that it would be “better for the department,” because enrollment in the latter course is always high; but then so are the enrollments for Prof. Miller’s propaganda course, which has earned the highest praises from its students.
For testimonials from Prof. Miller’s students click here.
Below is the text change.org petition, you can sign it here.
We the undersigned support the academic freedom of Prof. Mark Crispin Miller, now under siege at New York University for urging students in his propaganda course to read scientific literature on the effectiveness of masks against transmission of COVID-19.
We see his situation as but one example of a growing global trend toward rigid censorship of expert views on urgent subjects of all kinds; so this petition is not just in his defense, but a protest on behalf of all professors, doctors, scientists and journalists who have been gagged, or punished for their rights to freely research, study, and interpret data on a variety of matters regardless of their controversial nature.
Censorship is nothing new. We have been edging toward it ever more for decades, as both academia and the media have long discouraged free investigation and discussion of urgent public questions of all kinds, as those who would attempt to tackle them empirically have been slandered as “conspiracy theorists” or “truthers” and other slurs deployed to shut them up, or purge them as purveyors of “misinformation,” “fake science” or “hate speech.”
Such censorship has blocked the sort of open, civil, reasoned give-and-take without which higher education—indeed, any education—is impossible, as is scientific progress overall.
We see Prof. Miller’s situation as a flashpoint in the struggle not just to reclaim but to protect free speech and free inquiry. NYU officials have no right to intervene in Prof. Miller’s courses or message his students surreptitiously undermining his integrity as an instructor.
They have no right to deprive him of the courses he was hired to teach and they should not join in a public smear campaign against the very rights they should uphold at a university.
That so stated, we urge that NYU respect his academic freedom, and thereby set a good example for all other schools with faculty who dare contest official narratives. Otherwise, “education” there will be mere training for compliance, stunting students’ minds instead of opening them - a practice fatal to democracy, and, finally, to humanity itself.
- Post #9,224
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 6:31am Oct 9, 2020 6:31am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,225
- Quote
- Edited 6:51am Oct 9, 2020 6:36am | Edited 6:51am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/gr...ops+to+zero%29
The Great Barrington Declaration And Its Critics
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...?itok=LY4e264-
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/09/2020 - 03:30
Authored by Jenin Younes via The American Institute for Economic Research,
Early this week, three of the world’s top epidemiologists published the Great Barrington Declaration, a short treatise that advocates a controversial approach to managing the coronavirus pandemic. Professors Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University argue that societies across the globe should reopen immediately and completely.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...cs-768x488.jpg
Instead of observing measures designed to slow the spread of the virus, the young and healthy should resume normal activity in order to incur herd immunity and thereby protect those vulnerable to severe illness. The authors urge the adoption of this strategy, which they call “Focused Protection,” in light of increasing evidence that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. . . Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
As of this writing, the Declaration has been signed by 3,089 other medical and public health scientists, 4,532 medical practitioners, and around 70,000 members of the general public.
While these scientists are not the first to express such views, given the degree to which their stance conflicts with the prevailing wisdom that everyone has a moral obligation to participate in efforts to “stop the spread,” it is not surprising that they have already encountered significant opposition.
Among their primary detractors is Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves, who considers their proposal akin to a suggestion that society “cull[] the herd of the sick and disabled. It’s grotesque.”
It is hard to see where Gonsalves reads into the Declaration, which seeks to balance the interests of all demographics, a call to “cull[] . . . the sick and disabled.” This accusation is merely part of the drama in what has become coronavirus theater.
Gonsalves’s more measured, and conceivably legitimate, argument is that, since around fifty percent of the United States population is vulnerable, those most likely to experience severe illness cannot simply be separated out from the rest of society. Some version of this notion – that the strategy is logistically unfeasible and therefore must be discarded– is the most prevalent critique of the document. Gonsalves and others, for instance Dr. Michael Head at University of Southampton, also contend that the declaration’s premise is false, because no one in the scientific community is calling for either extended or extensive lockdowns.
But this latter claim is simply untrue. Many prominent scientists have called for extreme lockdowns in the United States, as recently as last month. While they claim this would eradicate the virus entirely, it is becoming increasingly evident that such suppressive measures last only as long as they are in place.
Once lifted, the virus simply resurges, as has been demonstrated by countries such as Peru, which initially implemented one of the world’s most extreme lockdowns and now has one of the worst outbreaks. Melbourne, Australia, has been under a severe lockdown for over a month, despite having declared early victory against the virus. The United Kingdom has been enacting various forms of shutdown for several weeks after having been more or less open for the summer, and the mayor of New York City and governor of New York State have been threatening to impose localized lockdowns in Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods in which cases are rising. Thus, whether endorsed by the scientific community or politicians, forced closures of schools and businesses are the default mechanism for managing rising cases in many parts of the world.
Lockdowns are no strawman, contrary to the claims of Gonsalves et al.
As for Gonsalves’s more compelling concern, it is true that protecting vulnerable members of society who do not reside in nursing homes, while allowing the rest to go about their lives, is not a simple feat. But the many scientists who conclude that, therefore, Focused Protection is not viable are woefully misguided. Initially, some portion of the vast resources that societies are expending to lock down could be diverted to this project. But more importantly, the critics’ position drastically underestimates the harm lockdowns inflict on a society.
Oxfam recently published a report concluding that 130 million more people will probably die of starvation due to supply chain disruptions resulting from lockdowns around the world. As Time magazine explains, that is exponentially more people than will succumb to the virus itself. The CDC has estimated the probable occurrence of more than 93,000 “non-Covid ‘excess deaths’ this year, including 42,427 from cardiovascular conditions, 10,686 from diabetes and 3,646 from cancer. Many are due to government shutdowns of non-essential medical care.” That is in this country alone.
Likewise, mental health is deteriorating; substance, child and domestic abuse are increasing; and children, especially those who come from families without means, are falling behind in school. Countless businesses have closed, many for good, spelling financial disaster for their owners and hardship for employees. All of this is due to lockdowns, despite the common misattributions in headlines to the “coronavirus” itself.
While Gonsalves and the other critics are quick to argue that Focused Protection is “grotesque,” at no point do they address the crux of the matter, which is that the harms of locking down and social distancing, especially to the young, outweigh the benefits. Their opposition stems from the myopic worldview that led to lockdown and social distancing strategies in the first place: that the pandemic is a uniquely horrible problem that justifies sidelining all others in the quest to solve it.
Instead, as we have seen over the past seven or eight months, the coronavirus is just one among countless difficulties that the world faces; when contemplated dispassionately, it does not stand out the way that, for instance, nuclear war or a truly apocalyptic pandemic would. At 1.05 million deaths over the past nine or ten months, the coronavirus appears to be a problem along the lines of, for example, traffic accidents, which cause 1.35 million deaths per year, or tuberculosis, which results in 1.5 million deaths annually.
Most of us understand and accept that preventing these deaths must be balanced against other interests. If, for instance, we banned vehicular travel in order to avoid deaths resulting from traffic accidents, but doing so caused 130 million deaths from supply chain disruptions, we would immediately recognize this as a failing proposition. Clearly, the same logic ought to apply here.
Critics of the Great Barrington Declaration correctly observe that we will not be able to prevent every death from coronavirus among the vulnerable. But their argument rests on the false assumption that preventing coronavirus deaths is more important than anything else, and while efforts can be made to mitigate collateral damage, in the end all must give way to this overarching goal.
Rather, like all else in life, mitigation efforts must be balanced against the injury those measures cause. Since lockdowns will probably cause more deaths by starvation alone than the coronavirus, never mind the myriad other harms, the critics’ position simply does not withstand any scrutiny. By contrast, the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration expressly recognize both sides of the equation and seek to minimize coronavirus deaths among the vulnerable and suffering inflicted upon the nonvulnerable. It should be obvious which is the better approach.
The Great Barrington Declaration And Its Critics
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...?itok=LY4e264-
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/09/2020 - 03:30
Authored by Jenin Younes via The American Institute for Economic Research,
Early this week, three of the world’s top epidemiologists published the Great Barrington Declaration, a short treatise that advocates a controversial approach to managing the coronavirus pandemic. Professors Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University argue that societies across the globe should reopen immediately and completely.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...cs-768x488.jpg
Instead of observing measures designed to slow the spread of the virus, the young and healthy should resume normal activity in order to incur herd immunity and thereby protect those vulnerable to severe illness. The authors urge the adoption of this strategy, which they call “Focused Protection,” in light of increasing evidence that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. . . Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
As of this writing, the Declaration has been signed by 3,089 other medical and public health scientists, 4,532 medical practitioners, and around 70,000 members of the general public.
While these scientists are not the first to express such views, given the degree to which their stance conflicts with the prevailing wisdom that everyone has a moral obligation to participate in efforts to “stop the spread,” it is not surprising that they have already encountered significant opposition.
Among their primary detractors is Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves, who considers their proposal akin to a suggestion that society “cull[] the herd of the sick and disabled. It’s grotesque.”
It is hard to see where Gonsalves reads into the Declaration, which seeks to balance the interests of all demographics, a call to “cull[] . . . the sick and disabled.” This accusation is merely part of the drama in what has become coronavirus theater.
Gonsalves’s more measured, and conceivably legitimate, argument is that, since around fifty percent of the United States population is vulnerable, those most likely to experience severe illness cannot simply be separated out from the rest of society. Some version of this notion – that the strategy is logistically unfeasible and therefore must be discarded– is the most prevalent critique of the document. Gonsalves and others, for instance Dr. Michael Head at University of Southampton, also contend that the declaration’s premise is false, because no one in the scientific community is calling for either extended or extensive lockdowns.
But this latter claim is simply untrue. Many prominent scientists have called for extreme lockdowns in the United States, as recently as last month. While they claim this would eradicate the virus entirely, it is becoming increasingly evident that such suppressive measures last only as long as they are in place.
Once lifted, the virus simply resurges, as has been demonstrated by countries such as Peru, which initially implemented one of the world’s most extreme lockdowns and now has one of the worst outbreaks. Melbourne, Australia, has been under a severe lockdown for over a month, despite having declared early victory against the virus. The United Kingdom has been enacting various forms of shutdown for several weeks after having been more or less open for the summer, and the mayor of New York City and governor of New York State have been threatening to impose localized lockdowns in Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods in which cases are rising. Thus, whether endorsed by the scientific community or politicians, forced closures of schools and businesses are the default mechanism for managing rising cases in many parts of the world.
Lockdowns are no strawman, contrary to the claims of Gonsalves et al.
As for Gonsalves’s more compelling concern, it is true that protecting vulnerable members of society who do not reside in nursing homes, while allowing the rest to go about their lives, is not a simple feat. But the many scientists who conclude that, therefore, Focused Protection is not viable are woefully misguided. Initially, some portion of the vast resources that societies are expending to lock down could be diverted to this project. But more importantly, the critics’ position drastically underestimates the harm lockdowns inflict on a society.
Oxfam recently published a report concluding that 130 million more people will probably die of starvation due to supply chain disruptions resulting from lockdowns around the world. As Time magazine explains, that is exponentially more people than will succumb to the virus itself. The CDC has estimated the probable occurrence of more than 93,000 “non-Covid ‘excess deaths’ this year, including 42,427 from cardiovascular conditions, 10,686 from diabetes and 3,646 from cancer. Many are due to government shutdowns of non-essential medical care.” That is in this country alone.
Likewise, mental health is deteriorating; substance, child and domestic abuse are increasing; and children, especially those who come from families without means, are falling behind in school. Countless businesses have closed, many for good, spelling financial disaster for their owners and hardship for employees. All of this is due to lockdowns, despite the common misattributions in headlines to the “coronavirus” itself.
While Gonsalves and the other critics are quick to argue that Focused Protection is “grotesque,” at no point do they address the crux of the matter, which is that the harms of locking down and social distancing, especially to the young, outweigh the benefits. Their opposition stems from the myopic worldview that led to lockdown and social distancing strategies in the first place: that the pandemic is a uniquely horrible problem that justifies sidelining all others in the quest to solve it.
Instead, as we have seen over the past seven or eight months, the coronavirus is just one among countless difficulties that the world faces; when contemplated dispassionately, it does not stand out the way that, for instance, nuclear war or a truly apocalyptic pandemic would. At 1.05 million deaths over the past nine or ten months, the coronavirus appears to be a problem along the lines of, for example, traffic accidents, which cause 1.35 million deaths per year, or tuberculosis, which results in 1.5 million deaths annually.
Most of us understand and accept that preventing these deaths must be balanced against other interests. If, for instance, we banned vehicular travel in order to avoid deaths resulting from traffic accidents, but doing so caused 130 million deaths from supply chain disruptions, we would immediately recognize this as a failing proposition. Clearly, the same logic ought to apply here.
Critics of the Great Barrington Declaration correctly observe that we will not be able to prevent every death from coronavirus among the vulnerable. But their argument rests on the false assumption that preventing coronavirus deaths is more important than anything else, and while efforts can be made to mitigate collateral damage, in the end all must give way to this overarching goal.
Rather, like all else in life, mitigation efforts must be balanced against the injury those measures cause. Since lockdowns will probably cause more deaths by starvation alone than the coronavirus, never mind the myriad other harms, the critics’ position simply does not withstand any scrutiny. By contrast, the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration expressly recognize both sides of the equation and seek to minimize coronavirus deaths among the vulnerable and suffering inflicted upon the nonvulnerable. It should be obvious which is the better approach.
- Post #9,226
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 12:35pm Oct 9, 2020 12:35pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index3357.htm
October 9, 2020
Trump Links Democrats To Communist China—Warns He Has “Hair Trigger” And “China Will Pay Big Price”
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A strategic military focused new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today examining just released findings compiled by the Ministry of Defense (MoD), says the probing of Russian Federation air defenses over this past week by 41 foreign spy planes and 3 drones is linked to the mysterious flooding into the world’s seas of hundreds of US military deployed Liquid Robotics Wave Glider drones, which are uncrewed watercraft designed to self-deploy over thousands of miles and carry a small payload—one of which has washed up on a beach in Scotland and has yet to be reclaimed—that strongly suggest these military water drones are being operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Whose purpose underlying these war moves shows the United States is preparing a large offensive in the coming weeks, that military experts have determined will see the US military attacking Communist China and seizing its islands in the South China Sea before the 3 November election—and in preparing for, is why Russian Federation defenses are being probed, as the Americans can safely do such training under protocols existing since the Cold War, that strictly delineate the red lines needing to be crossed before defense measures are employed.
Protocols and red lines, however, non-existent between the United States and Communist China—and during the past 48-hours, has seen Communist China warning Taiwan to “Prepare For War”—that was followed by United States National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien warning Communist China against attacking Taiwan—and in observing, has caused revered American statesman Henry Kissinger to warn that this standoff between the United States and Communist China “will slide into a situation similar to World War I”—the meaning of which is that this looming war between the United States and Communist China is able to be ignited by a provocative act—such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and Franz Ferdinand's wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, that occurred on 28 June 1914, which was the spark that ignited World War I, and whose death toll, when combined with the Spanish Flu pandemic raging during this conflict, killed over 100-million.
And whose provocative acts ready to ignite war between the United States and Communist China, has just seen top President Trump advisor Peter Navarro declaring a few hours ago: “What we have is the Democrat Party and the Chinese Communist Party effectively making common cause in the defeat of Donald J. Trump…You’ve got Communist China and effectively, a socialist Democratic Party”—a declaration quickly joined by Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan revealing her shocking research paper proving that SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was not only created in a Wuhan lab, it's an “unrestricted bioweapon” which was intentionally released.
All of which explains why over the past few days President Trump has posted numerous videos vowing to the American people that “China Will Pay A Big Price” for its role in the coronavirus pandemic—saw President Trump further stating: “China did this…This was all done by China…And we shouldn’t be hurting our workers because China put the curse on”—and most ominously saw President Trump saying about Communist China a few hours ago: “They know that I'm a hair trigger when it comes to them…And I'm sick of them”. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
According to this report, while the leftist mainstream propaganda media establishment keeps hidden from the masses of the American people how close President Trump is to attacking Communist China, the socialist Democrats are rushing to prevent him from attacking their main ally—but whose sloppy attempt to do so sees socialist Democrat Party leader US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declaring that she’s going to create a 25th Amendment Commission to analyze the mental health of President Trump and throw him from power—a commission socialist leader Pelosi is legally authorized to create under the provisions outlined in the Presidential Disability and Succession 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution—but is being mocked as “coup-coup nonsense”, as in order for socialist leader Pelosi to carry out this latest coup plot against President Trump, she’d need the backing of nearly every single Republican Party lawmaker in the US Congress, as both the US House and US Senate would have to approve such a commission, and three-quarters of both chambers would be needed to throw a president from power—and are the same Republicans who loath and despise Pelosi.
In the latest example of what is causing these socialist Democrats and their leftist media syncopates to go “coup-coup” insane, this report details, was these godless idiots over the past 24-hours attempting to blame President Trump for being the cause of a kidnapping plot against socialist Democrat Party tyrant Governor Gretchen Whitmer of the State of Michigan—but in reality was kidnapping plot led by Brandon Caserta, who is a proud member of the radical leftist ANTIFA terrorist organization, and called President Trump a “tyrant” and an “enemy”.
At the same time these maniacal socialist Democrats and leftist media idiots were trying to perpetrate yet another lying hoax against President Trump, this report notes, they would have been better served if they’d contemplated the ratings figures for the debate between Vice President Mike Pence and socialist leader Kamala Harris that occurred the day prior—and in contemplating would have seen them noticing the article “Pence-Harris Debate Draws 11.9 Million Viewers On Fox News, 50.5 Million Overall--Most-Watched Vice Presidential Debate On A Single Network In TV History”—whose significance of shows that the masses of American people have turned away from the leftist media, and are now getting their news from those like Fox News that tell them truth—and one can safely assume are American people that were also appalled when seeing that out of the 26 post debate analysts on all of the leftist cabal news and broadcast TV, only 2 of them were Trump supporters.
As to why the lying leftist media needed so many socialist Democrat Party backing analysts after this debate, this report explains, was so they could keep hidden from their viewers such realities exposed by eminent pollster Frank Luntz—who assembled for this debate a large group of undecided voters, the overwhelming majority of whom said Pence won it—and in watching Harris during the debate, saw these undecided voters finding her “abrasive and condescending”—findings that caused esteemed political analyst, and former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich to predict the Biden-Harris ticket will collapse—a prediction that the Presidential Debates Commission apparently agreed with, as they then went into the tank for socialist leader Biden and canceled his next debate against President Trump—that no one should be really surprised about, as the Presidential Debate Commission has already been officially declared as a “secretive tax-exempt organization” funded by elite wealthy Trump haters—who picked their fellow Trump hater USA Today's Washington bureau chief Susan Page to moderate this debate—the same USA Today that when this debate ended, put up a poll so their readers could choose who won—but whose only choices given were 1.) Kamala Harris; 2.) Joe Biden’ 3.) The Pesky Fly; 4.) I Didn’t Watch!—a shameful and deliberate disappearance from this leftist poll of Vice President Mike Pence—but whose most notable disappearance following this debate where those who support socialist leaders Biden and Harris—as when after this debate both Biden and Harris traveled to a campaign rally in Arizona, they were met by just 8 people.
To further aid the collapsing campaign of socialist Democrat Party leaders Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, this report continues, leftist social media giant Twitter is now censoring the #Obamagate and #Russiagate hashtags in order to keep hidden from the American people the greatest crime in their nation’s history—a cover-up of staggering proportions that now sees Twitter joining in the crime to throw the 3 November election into chaos, as in the past few hours, they locked out the account of Ambassador Ric Grenell after he shared an image of ballots sent to him by a friend living in California, who says they were addressed to his parents who’ve been dead for 10-years.
With it being safe to assume that President Trump has lost the vote of all the dead people in America, as history has long recorded that dead people in cemeteries only vote for socialist Democrats, this report further notes, his loyal forces, nevertheless, are battling to keep mail-in ballots from being sent to these dead people, at the same they watch as more mail-in ballots are being stolen and thrown away so living people can’t vote—and whose latest victory occurred yesterday when the United States Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals told the socialist State of Wisconsin “NO! You aren’t going to expand absentee voting”—a Seventh Circuit Court ruling important to notice, as it also applies to Sixth Circuit Court that oversees the State of Ohio, and where yesterday radical leftist Clinton appointed United States District Judge Dan A. Polster defied this ruling to try to change Ohio’s election laws, though one legal expert did say: “I doubt Judge Polster had read the Seventh Circuit opinion when he entered his own order....But I’m guessing the Judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, which covers Ohio, will be quite familiar with it when this matter reaches them in a few days”—and while occurring saw leftist Justice Elena Kagan of the United States Supreme Court rejecting without comment a mail-in ballot case from the State of Montana that she oversees, but without doubt will see Justice Kagan being overruled when the rest of the Supreme Court takes this case on appeal.
With Deep State terror rapidly increasing after yesterday’s revealing of handwritten notes by former FBI General Counsel James Baker proving the grave crimes committed against General Michel Flynn, and strongly suggesting that Baker has flipped, this report concludes, President Trump is preparing to lead the final stages of this war after being given a clean bill of health by his doctors—and is why President Trump is saying that he might hold a rally in Florida on Saturday, where new polls show Trump has taken a firm lead over Biden—though would be coming at the same time top Republican Party leader US Senator Ted Cruz is grimly warning that the election “could be a bloodbath of Watergate proportions” for all Republicans if voters are angry and broke when casting their ballots—a warning, however, that stands opposed to the just released Gallop poll that shows 56% of the American people saying that they are better off now under President Trump than four years ago under Obama-Biden—and most important to notice about, is its being “the highest Gallup has ever recorded”—thus bringing into question what Senator Cruz is really warning about—whose most obvious answer is that it’s intended to scare Republican voters into voting—as at this time, no one knows how many dead people will be voting for socialist Democrats in this election—and to effectively counter needs as many alive Republican voters as possible.
October 9, 2020 EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
[Note: Many governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagree with in believing that it is every human being’s right to know the truth. Due to our mission’s conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit us, and others like us, that is exampled in numerous places, including HERE.]
[Note: The WhatDoesItMean.com website was created for and donated to the Sisters of Sorcha Faal in 2003 by a small group of American computer experts led by the late global technology guru Wayne Green (1922-2013) to counter the propaganda being used by the West to promote their illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.]
[Note: The word Kremlin (fortress inside a city) as used in this report refers to Russian citadels, including in Moscow, having cathedrals wherein female Schema monks (Orthodox nuns) reside, many of whom are devoted to the mission of the Sisters of Sorcha Faal.]
Tsarina Hillary Clinton Is Going To Prison—It's Not If Anymore, It's When
Best Kept Secret Of Science Explains Everything About Trump And 2020
Return To Main Page
October 9, 2020
Trump Links Democrats To Communist China—Warns He Has “Hair Trigger” And “China Will Pay Big Price”
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A strategic military focused new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today examining just released findings compiled by the Ministry of Defense (MoD), says the probing of Russian Federation air defenses over this past week by 41 foreign spy planes and 3 drones is linked to the mysterious flooding into the world’s seas of hundreds of US military deployed Liquid Robotics Wave Glider drones, which are uncrewed watercraft designed to self-deploy over thousands of miles and carry a small payload—one of which has washed up on a beach in Scotland and has yet to be reclaimed—that strongly suggest these military water drones are being operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Whose purpose underlying these war moves shows the United States is preparing a large offensive in the coming weeks, that military experts have determined will see the US military attacking Communist China and seizing its islands in the South China Sea before the 3 November election—and in preparing for, is why Russian Federation defenses are being probed, as the Americans can safely do such training under protocols existing since the Cold War, that strictly delineate the red lines needing to be crossed before defense measures are employed.
Protocols and red lines, however, non-existent between the United States and Communist China—and during the past 48-hours, has seen Communist China warning Taiwan to “Prepare For War”—that was followed by United States National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien warning Communist China against attacking Taiwan—and in observing, has caused revered American statesman Henry Kissinger to warn that this standoff between the United States and Communist China “will slide into a situation similar to World War I”—the meaning of which is that this looming war between the United States and Communist China is able to be ignited by a provocative act—such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and Franz Ferdinand's wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, that occurred on 28 June 1914, which was the spark that ignited World War I, and whose death toll, when combined with the Spanish Flu pandemic raging during this conflict, killed over 100-million.
And whose provocative acts ready to ignite war between the United States and Communist China, has just seen top President Trump advisor Peter Navarro declaring a few hours ago: “What we have is the Democrat Party and the Chinese Communist Party effectively making common cause in the defeat of Donald J. Trump…You’ve got Communist China and effectively, a socialist Democratic Party”—a declaration quickly joined by Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan revealing her shocking research paper proving that SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was not only created in a Wuhan lab, it's an “unrestricted bioweapon” which was intentionally released.
All of which explains why over the past few days President Trump has posted numerous videos vowing to the American people that “China Will Pay A Big Price” for its role in the coronavirus pandemic—saw President Trump further stating: “China did this…This was all done by China…And we shouldn’t be hurting our workers because China put the curse on”—and most ominously saw President Trump saying about Communist China a few hours ago: “They know that I'm a hair trigger when it comes to them…And I'm sick of them”. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd23.jpg
According to this report, while the leftist mainstream propaganda media establishment keeps hidden from the masses of the American people how close President Trump is to attacking Communist China, the socialist Democrats are rushing to prevent him from attacking their main ally—but whose sloppy attempt to do so sees socialist Democrat Party leader US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declaring that she’s going to create a 25th Amendment Commission to analyze the mental health of President Trump and throw him from power—a commission socialist leader Pelosi is legally authorized to create under the provisions outlined in the Presidential Disability and Succession 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution—but is being mocked as “coup-coup nonsense”, as in order for socialist leader Pelosi to carry out this latest coup plot against President Trump, she’d need the backing of nearly every single Republican Party lawmaker in the US Congress, as both the US House and US Senate would have to approve such a commission, and three-quarters of both chambers would be needed to throw a president from power—and are the same Republicans who loath and despise Pelosi.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd21.png
In the latest example of what is causing these socialist Democrats and their leftist media syncopates to go “coup-coup” insane, this report details, was these godless idiots over the past 24-hours attempting to blame President Trump for being the cause of a kidnapping plot against socialist Democrat Party tyrant Governor Gretchen Whitmer of the State of Michigan—but in reality was kidnapping plot led by Brandon Caserta, who is a proud member of the radical leftist ANTIFA terrorist organization, and called President Trump a “tyrant” and an “enemy”.
At the same time these maniacal socialist Democrats and leftist media idiots were trying to perpetrate yet another lying hoax against President Trump, this report notes, they would have been better served if they’d contemplated the ratings figures for the debate between Vice President Mike Pence and socialist leader Kamala Harris that occurred the day prior—and in contemplating would have seen them noticing the article “Pence-Harris Debate Draws 11.9 Million Viewers On Fox News, 50.5 Million Overall--Most-Watched Vice Presidential Debate On A Single Network In TV History”—whose significance of shows that the masses of American people have turned away from the leftist media, and are now getting their news from those like Fox News that tell them truth—and one can safely assume are American people that were also appalled when seeing that out of the 26 post debate analysts on all of the leftist cabal news and broadcast TV, only 2 of them were Trump supporters.
As to why the lying leftist media needed so many socialist Democrat Party backing analysts after this debate, this report explains, was so they could keep hidden from their viewers such realities exposed by eminent pollster Frank Luntz—who assembled for this debate a large group of undecided voters, the overwhelming majority of whom said Pence won it—and in watching Harris during the debate, saw these undecided voters finding her “abrasive and condescending”—findings that caused esteemed political analyst, and former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich to predict the Biden-Harris ticket will collapse—a prediction that the Presidential Debates Commission apparently agreed with, as they then went into the tank for socialist leader Biden and canceled his next debate against President Trump—that no one should be really surprised about, as the Presidential Debate Commission has already been officially declared as a “secretive tax-exempt organization” funded by elite wealthy Trump haters—who picked their fellow Trump hater USA Today's Washington bureau chief Susan Page to moderate this debate—the same USA Today that when this debate ended, put up a poll so their readers could choose who won—but whose only choices given were 1.) Kamala Harris; 2.) Joe Biden’ 3.) The Pesky Fly; 4.) I Didn’t Watch!—a shameful and deliberate disappearance from this leftist poll of Vice President Mike Pence—but whose most notable disappearance following this debate where those who support socialist leaders Biden and Harris—as when after this debate both Biden and Harris traveled to a campaign rally in Arizona, they were met by just 8 people.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd22.jpg
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd24.jpg
Leftist newspaper USA Today doesn’t allow its readers to vote for Vice President Mike Pence in debate poll (top photo) while socialist Democrat Party leaders Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (bottom photo) hold post debate campaign rally surrounded by just 8 supporters.
To further aid the collapsing campaign of socialist Democrat Party leaders Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, this report continues, leftist social media giant Twitter is now censoring the #Obamagate and #Russiagate hashtags in order to keep hidden from the American people the greatest crime in their nation’s history—a cover-up of staggering proportions that now sees Twitter joining in the crime to throw the 3 November election into chaos, as in the past few hours, they locked out the account of Ambassador Ric Grenell after he shared an image of ballots sent to him by a friend living in California, who says they were addressed to his parents who’ve been dead for 10-years.
With it being safe to assume that President Trump has lost the vote of all the dead people in America, as history has long recorded that dead people in cemeteries only vote for socialist Democrats, this report further notes, his loyal forces, nevertheless, are battling to keep mail-in ballots from being sent to these dead people, at the same they watch as more mail-in ballots are being stolen and thrown away so living people can’t vote—and whose latest victory occurred yesterday when the United States Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals told the socialist State of Wisconsin “NO! You aren’t going to expand absentee voting”—a Seventh Circuit Court ruling important to notice, as it also applies to Sixth Circuit Court that oversees the State of Ohio, and where yesterday radical leftist Clinton appointed United States District Judge Dan A. Polster defied this ruling to try to change Ohio’s election laws, though one legal expert did say: “I doubt Judge Polster had read the Seventh Circuit opinion when he entered his own order....But I’m guessing the Judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, which covers Ohio, will be quite familiar with it when this matter reaches them in a few days”—and while occurring saw leftist Justice Elena Kagan of the United States Supreme Court rejecting without comment a mail-in ballot case from the State of Montana that she oversees, but without doubt will see Justice Kagan being overruled when the rest of the Supreme Court takes this case on appeal.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd25.jpg
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd26.jpg
“I am the son of John and Gertrude Thompson. Both passed away over ten years ago and got ballots for the upcoming election. I gave Richard Grenell permission to post these pictures (both above) and ask for an investigation as to why they were mailed ballots for the 2020 election.”
With Deep State terror rapidly increasing after yesterday’s revealing of handwritten notes by former FBI General Counsel James Baker proving the grave crimes committed against General Michel Flynn, and strongly suggesting that Baker has flipped, this report concludes, President Trump is preparing to lead the final stages of this war after being given a clean bill of health by his doctors—and is why President Trump is saying that he might hold a rally in Florida on Saturday, where new polls show Trump has taken a firm lead over Biden—though would be coming at the same time top Republican Party leader US Senator Ted Cruz is grimly warning that the election “could be a bloodbath of Watergate proportions” for all Republicans if voters are angry and broke when casting their ballots—a warning, however, that stands opposed to the just released Gallop poll that shows 56% of the American people saying that they are better off now under President Trump than four years ago under Obama-Biden—and most important to notice about, is its being “the highest Gallup has ever recorded”—thus bringing into question what Senator Cruz is really warning about—whose most obvious answer is that it’s intended to scare Republican voters into voting—as at this time, no one knows how many dead people will be voting for socialist Democrats in this election—and to effectively counter needs as many alive Republican voters as possible.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pd27.jpg
American people begin flocking to cemeteries so they can beg their dead relatives not to vote for socialist Democrat Party.
October 9, 2020 EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
[Note: Many governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagree with in believing that it is every human being’s right to know the truth. Due to our mission’s conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit us, and others like us, that is exampled in numerous places, including HERE.]
[Note: The WhatDoesItMean.com website was created for and donated to the Sisters of Sorcha Faal in 2003 by a small group of American computer experts led by the late global technology guru Wayne Green (1922-2013) to counter the propaganda being used by the West to promote their illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.]
[Note: The word Kremlin (fortress inside a city) as used in this report refers to Russian citadels, including in Moscow, having cathedrals wherein female Schema monks (Orthodox nuns) reside, many of whom are devoted to the mission of the Sisters of Sorcha Faal.]
Tsarina Hillary Clinton Is Going To Prison—It's Not If Anymore, It's When
Best Kept Secret Of Science Explains Everything About Trump And 2020
Return To Main Page
- Post #9,227
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 4:06pm Oct 9, 2020 4:06pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,228
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 4:06pm Oct 9, 2020 4:06pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,229
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 4:17pm Oct 9, 2020 4:17pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,230
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 6:40pm Oct 9, 2020 6:40pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
Inserted Video
- Post #9,231
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 6:44pm Oct 9, 2020 6:44pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
Inserted Video
- Post #9,232
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 7:08pm Oct 9, 2020 7:08pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...he-deep-state/
The 1804 Northern Secession Plot and the Founding Fathers of the Deep State
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...kLeUXWRoIw.png
Matthew Ehret
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...0qIKaFDElw.png
October 6, 2020
Photo: Wikimedia
“In a choice of Evils let them take the least – Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than Burr.”
– Alexander Hamilton (1800)
The miracle of America’s surviving its many near death experiences over the years can be attributed less to fate and more to the immense sacrifices by great statesmen over the years… one of whom we will explore in this essay.
With America being set on fire by a diverse array of catalysts: hyperinflationary economic blowout, threats of martial law and British-run Deep State adding to the ongoing anarchy sweeping the nation funded by billionaire color revolutionaries, it is easy to become a bit lost, confused and cynical over the future of the republic or even humanity more broadly.
However, when reviewing the history of the USA from its earliest years throughout its numerous moments of near-collapse witnessed in 1804, 1812, 1861-65 to the present, the very fact that the republic even exists at all is nothing less than a miracle which should not be taken for granted. The miracle of America’s surviving its many near death experiences over the years can be attributed less to fate and more to the immense sacrifices by great (and often assassinated) statesmen over the years… one of whom we will explore in this essay.
Between 1776 until his death in 1804, Hamilton used every ounce of his influence to ensure that the many traitorous movements launched by diverse branches of British operations in America (including from his own Federalist Party), and often under the leadership of arch-traitor Aaron Burr, failed to achieve their goals. These operations which included Canadian United Empire Loyalists, New York financiers and southern slave interests, can collectively be defined as the “founding fathers of today’s deep state” which evolved over the years and took over much of the nation after the death of Franklin Roosevelt.
One of Hamilton’s most important victories during this precarious time occurred during the 1800 presidential elections which still confuses some scholars today. These scholars cannot understand why Hamilton’s feud with Jefferson didn’t stop the former from devoting all of his energy into helping the latter gain the victory over presidential hopeful Aaron Burr. Speaking of his motives for this paradoxical maneuver, Hamilton famously said:
“Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102001.jpg
To understand the conditions shaping this strategic fight only 11 years after Ben Franklin died, one must understand how the British Empire used an evil cancer embedded in the young nation to destroy it from within when it became obvious that external force could not succeed.
After Burr’s defeat to Jefferson in 1800 (becoming a distrusted lame-duck vice president), the direct Federal support required for a dissolution of the union was no longer attainable, and so a new plot was hatched that came to life in 1803 which required Burr’s control of New York state.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102002.jpg
“Although the end of all our Revolutionary labors and expectations is disappointment, and our fond hopes of republican happiness are vanity… I will not yet despair: I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the South. There will be – and our children at farthest will see it – a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary. The British Provinces, even with the assent of Britain, will become members of the Northern confederacy …”
The strategy described above hinged on bringing New York into the northern secession plot as the economic powerhouse needed to fuse the other “free states” into British Canada.
Writing to Opium-pushing Junto leader George Cabot, Timothy Pickering stated:
“We suppose the British Provinces in Canada and Nova Scotia, at no remote period, perhaps without delay, and with the assent of Great Britain, may become members of the Northern League. Certainly, that government can feel only disgust at our present rulers. She will be pleased to see them crestfallen. She will not regret the proposed division of empire. If with her own consent she relinquishes her provinces, she will be rid of the charge of maintaining them; while she will derive from them, as she does from us, all the commercial returns which her merchants now receive. A liberal treaty of amity and commerce will form a bond of union between Great Britain and the Northern confederacy highly useful to both …”
In another letter of March 4, 1804, Pickering wrote of Burr’s leading role in the plan:
“The Federalists here in general anxiously desire the election of Mr. Burr to the chair of New York; for they despair of a present ascendancy of the Federal party. Mr. Burr alone, we think, can break your Democratic phalanx; and we anticipate much good from his success. Were New York detached (as under his administration it would be) from the Virginia influence, the whole Union would be benefited. Jefferson would then be forced to observe some caution and forbearance in his measures. And, if a separation should be deemed proper, the five New England States, New York, and New Jersey would naturally be united. Among those seven states, there is a sufficient congeniality of character to authorize the expectation of practicable harmony and a permanent union, New York the centre.”
Without New York on board, the plot for Northern secession could not succeed, and again a new strategy had to be concocted.
Without going into details, it is enough to say that an enraged Burr had decided that Hamilton had to be eliminated once and for all, and in the wake of his gubernatorial defeat, Burr put all of his chips into organizing a duel with his nemesis, resulting in Hamilton’s death on July 12, 1804. (2)
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102003.jpg
Three weeks after this tragic affair, the British Ambassador Anthony Merry (after meeting with the arch-traitor and Burr confidante Colonel Wilkinson) wrote giddily to the British Foreign Secretary explaining his having recruited Burr to the Empire’s cause of creating a new western Confederacy established by a joint U.S.-British war on Mexico with Burr as it’s head. Ambassador Merry wrote:
“I have just received an offer from Mr. Burr, the actual vice president of the United States (which situation he is about to resign) to lend his assistance to His Majesty’s Government in any manner in which they may think fit to employ him, particularly in endeavouring to effect a separation of the western part of the United States from that which lies between the Atlantic and the mountains, in its whole extant. – His propositions on this and other subjects will be fully detailed to your Lordship by Col. Williamson who has been the bearer of them to me, and who will embark for England in a few days. – It is therefore only necessary for me to add that if, after what is generally known of the profligacy of Mr. Burr’s character, His Majesty’s Ministers should think proper to listen to his offer, his present situation in this country where he is now cast off as much by the democratic as by the federal party, and where he still preserves connections with some people of influence, added to his great ambition and spirit of revenge against the present administration, may possibly induce him to exert the talents and activity which he possesses with fidelity to his employers.”
Napoleon’s desire to sell this gigantic territory to the Americans was a surprise to all (including the Americans) and threw a big wrench in British plans to take control of this land and again suffocate the USA as a closed system locked onto the Atlantic Coast as had been attempted with the 1774 Quebec Act earlier.
4
By this time, Burr managed to get President Jefferson to approve putting his co-conspirators into powerful positions of the new Louisiana Territory with Col. Wilkinson appointed Governor.
This new plan involved British soldiers working alongside American mercenaries under Burr’s employ who would first take full control of Louisiana, New Orleans, expand the territory by declaring war on Spain. According to testimonies delivered at Burr’s trial, Burr would then turn his attention to the capital where the sitting president would be deposed, and Burr established as Monarch of a new British American confederation. The British had been caught providing boats and money to the mercenaries (40 British boats and 75 mercenaries were apprehended), correspondences were intercepted and soon Burr was standing in front of the supreme court facing treason charges. The diplomat William Eaton testified that Burr told him that “he would turn Congress neck and heels out of doors, assassinate the President, (or what amounted to that,) and declare himself the protector of an energetic Government.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102005.jpg
Unfortunately, these testimonies somehow did not qualify as the sort of hard evidence needed to convict Burr (and Ambassador Merry’s smoking gun letter was only discovered decades later) resulting in Burr’s unfortunate acquittal.
Popular rage towards the former Vice President made life impossible within the republic and using a $40,000 “gift” from John Jacob Astor, Burr soon made his way in disguise to Canada where his nephew George Prevost was serving as Governor General. Prevost gave Burr letters of introduction to Lord Castlereagh as he embarked on a ship from Nova Scotia to London where Burr stayed at Jeremy Bentham’s mansion for the next 5 years and, in between heavy doses of opium and prostitutes, plotted with the highest echelons of British intelligence a new scheme for the dissolution of the Union (Bentham was the head of British Intelligence Services in those days and extended networks across the globe).
While in London, Burr wrote of Bentham (the pervert who wrote such immoral tracts as In Defense of Usury and In Defense of Pederasty): “He is, indeed, the most perfect model that I have seen or imagined of moral and intellectual excellence. He is the most intimate friend I have in this country, and my constant associate. I live in his house and compose a part of his family.”
In 1815, Burr laid out the earliest plan for raising the racist puppet Andrew Jackson to the status of President of the USA in a letter to Joseph Alston (Burr’s son-in-law and former Governor of South Carolina) saying:
“If, then, there be a man in the United States of firmness and decision, and having standing enough to afford even a hope of success, it is your duty to hold him up to public view: that man is Andrew Jackson. Nothing is wanting but a respectable nomination, made before the proclamation of the Virginia caucus, and Jackson’s success is inevitable. If this project should accord with your views, I could wish to see you prominent in the execution of it. It must be known to be your work.”
Though it took another decade, the eventual federal takeover of the Burr machine under the combined presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren (ruling from 1828-1840) represented a massive defeat of the Hamiltonian networks then led by John Quincy Adams, William Harrison, Matthew Carey and Henry Clay. The only two successes of the Hamiltonian nationalists then centered in the Whig party to regain control during the 1840-1860 period found Whig presidents dying under mysterious circumstances before they could extract the British rot (Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1852).
Under Jackson and Van Buren, protectionism was dismantled in favor of British free trade, speculation grew rampantly as did the southern slave power as the south was cleansed of Cherokee under the Trail of Tears and given over to racist oligarchs. The National Bank was destroyed in Jackson’s last year in office, cutting the USA off from its only means of generating sovereign credit for development resulting in the panic and depression of 1837. All major infrastructure projects were cancelled under the banner of “paying the debt” and America’s path to dissolution dreamed of by Burr and his Deep State cohorts in 1804 was accelerated in short order. This story is documented thoroughly in Michael Kirsch’s ground breaking 2012 article How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102006.jpg
The role of British operations both within America itself as well as British Canada cannot be overstated when evaluating the short and precarious experience of the United States from 1776 to the present. Were America is to survive the coming maelstroms, then it is safe to say that ignorance of this continuous intention to undo the revolution of 1776 can any longer be tolerated.
In the next installment, I will demonstrate how British Canada was used during the bloody 1861-1865 Civil War to destroy Lincoln’s efforts to save the beleaguered union from the North while simultaneously fighting to stop the British-funded secessionist movements from the South. During this exercise, don’t be surprised to discover that Lincoln’s murder was deployed from the Confederate Secret Services stronghold of Montreal, or that Canada’s modern origins as an 1867 “northern confederacy” were shaped purely by a geopolitical desire to break the republic during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Lastly… keep in mind that these historical lessons are not about the past, but rather are about our future.
The 1804 Northern Secession Plot and the Founding Fathers of the Deep State
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...kLeUXWRoIw.png
Matthew Ehret
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...0qIKaFDElw.png
October 6, 2020
Photo: Wikimedia
“In a choice of Evils let them take the least – Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than Burr.”
– Alexander Hamilton (1800)
The miracle of America’s surviving its many near death experiences over the years can be attributed less to fate and more to the immense sacrifices by great statesmen over the years… one of whom we will explore in this essay.
With America being set on fire by a diverse array of catalysts: hyperinflationary economic blowout, threats of martial law and British-run Deep State adding to the ongoing anarchy sweeping the nation funded by billionaire color revolutionaries, it is easy to become a bit lost, confused and cynical over the future of the republic or even humanity more broadly.
However, when reviewing the history of the USA from its earliest years throughout its numerous moments of near-collapse witnessed in 1804, 1812, 1861-65 to the present, the very fact that the republic even exists at all is nothing less than a miracle which should not be taken for granted. The miracle of America’s surviving its many near death experiences over the years can be attributed less to fate and more to the immense sacrifices by great (and often assassinated) statesmen over the years… one of whom we will explore in this essay.
Hamilton vs. Burr
As I mentioned in my recent paper on Alexander Hamilton’s Genius, America’s first U.S. Treasury Secretary killed by Aaron Burr (aka: the father of Wall Street) in 1804, was indispensable in the young nation’s survival during the first 30 years after 1776. Even though it hasn’t been taught in any western university in generations, Hamilton’s system of political economy which arose from his four reports of 1791 was premised on the practices of 1) national banking, 2) productive credit generation for long term internal improvements, 3) industrial growth (vs slave-based production) and 4) protective tariffs. Most importantly, this system set “economic value” not upon the worship of money but rather on the creative mental activity of citizens through constant scientific and technological progress.Between 1776 until his death in 1804, Hamilton used every ounce of his influence to ensure that the many traitorous movements launched by diverse branches of British operations in America (including from his own Federalist Party), and often under the leadership of arch-traitor Aaron Burr, failed to achieve their goals. These operations which included Canadian United Empire Loyalists, New York financiers and southern slave interests, can collectively be defined as the “founding fathers of today’s deep state” which evolved over the years and took over much of the nation after the death of Franklin Roosevelt.
One of Hamilton’s most important victories during this precarious time occurred during the 1800 presidential elections which still confuses some scholars today. These scholars cannot understand why Hamilton’s feud with Jefferson didn’t stop the former from devoting all of his energy into helping the latter gain the victory over presidential hopeful Aaron Burr. Speaking of his motives for this paradoxical maneuver, Hamilton famously said:
“Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102001.jpg
To understand the conditions shaping this strategic fight only 11 years after Ben Franklin died, one must understand how the British Empire used an evil cancer embedded in the young nation to destroy it from within when it became obvious that external force could not succeed.
Slavery: America’s Achilles Heel
Despite the fact that slavery was nearly extinguished by 1792 (1), forces loyal to the British Empire within the “eastern establishment” led by aristocratically minded traitors like Timothy Pickering, Aaron Burr, Col. James Wilkinson, George Cabot and Albert Gallatin worked hard to advance a plot for breaking up the republic into two separate confederacies under the guise that “slave states and free states could not co-exist”. While this fact may have been true, rather than continue the struggle to abolish slavery by imposing the authority of the Constitution, such traitors made the argument that it were best to dissolve the nation and constitution completely. Under these designs, British Canada would merge with northern “free states” under a new Anglo-Saxon confederation, while the slave power would be free to create its own southern confederation. Under this design, both northern and southern confederacies would be defined by a special relationship with England and dominated by the City of London’s economic web of finance.After Burr’s defeat to Jefferson in 1800 (becoming a distrusted lame-duck vice president), the direct Federal support required for a dissolution of the union was no longer attainable, and so a new plot was hatched that came to life in 1803 which required Burr’s control of New York state.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102002.jpg
The New England Secessionist Plot
Describing this plot to his co-conspiratorial senator Richard Peters on December 24, 1803, Timothy Pickering (former Secretary of State under President Adams and guiding hand behind the cabal known as the Essex Junto) wrote:“Although the end of all our Revolutionary labors and expectations is disappointment, and our fond hopes of republican happiness are vanity… I will not yet despair: I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the South. There will be – and our children at farthest will see it – a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary. The British Provinces, even with the assent of Britain, will become members of the Northern confederacy …”
The strategy described above hinged on bringing New York into the northern secession plot as the economic powerhouse needed to fuse the other “free states” into British Canada.
Proof of Aaron Burr’s Treachery
While many popular historians adamantly choose to deny this fact (some going even so far as to celebrate the life of Burr as a hero), surviving letters have irrefutably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Aaron Burr was the unquestioned leader of this plot- as demonstrated by a journal entry written by Essex Junto leader Senator William Plumer who described a conspiratorial meeting at his house involving Senator James Hillhouse, Burr, and Senator Uriah Tracy in the winter of 1803-04. During this meeting, Plumer wrote that Hillhouse “unequivocally declared that it was his opinion that the United States would soon form two distinct governments’; and ‘Burr conversed very freely on the subject … and the impression made on his mind was, that Burr not only thought a separation would not only take place but that it was necessary.”Writing to Opium-pushing Junto leader George Cabot, Timothy Pickering stated:
“We suppose the British Provinces in Canada and Nova Scotia, at no remote period, perhaps without delay, and with the assent of Great Britain, may become members of the Northern League. Certainly, that government can feel only disgust at our present rulers. She will be pleased to see them crestfallen. She will not regret the proposed division of empire. If with her own consent she relinquishes her provinces, she will be rid of the charge of maintaining them; while she will derive from them, as she does from us, all the commercial returns which her merchants now receive. A liberal treaty of amity and commerce will form a bond of union between Great Britain and the Northern confederacy highly useful to both …”
In another letter of March 4, 1804, Pickering wrote of Burr’s leading role in the plan:
“The Federalists here in general anxiously desire the election of Mr. Burr to the chair of New York; for they despair of a present ascendancy of the Federal party. Mr. Burr alone, we think, can break your Democratic phalanx; and we anticipate much good from his success. Were New York detached (as under his administration it would be) from the Virginia influence, the whole Union would be benefited. Jefferson would then be forced to observe some caution and forbearance in his measures. And, if a separation should be deemed proper, the five New England States, New York, and New Jersey would naturally be united. Among those seven states, there is a sufficient congeniality of character to authorize the expectation of practicable harmony and a permanent union, New York the centre.”
The Plan is Modified
As Pickering alluded to in his letter, this plan hinged upon Burr’s 1804 victory as Governor of New York State and once again, just as in the presidential fight of 1800, Alexander Hamilton devoted all of his energy to ensuring Burr’s defeat resulting in 28,000 votes going to Burr and 35,000 going to his opponent Morgan Lewis.Without New York on board, the plot for Northern secession could not succeed, and again a new strategy had to be concocted.
Without going into details, it is enough to say that an enraged Burr had decided that Hamilton had to be eliminated once and for all, and in the wake of his gubernatorial defeat, Burr put all of his chips into organizing a duel with his nemesis, resulting in Hamilton’s death on July 12, 1804. (2)
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102003.jpg
Three weeks after this tragic affair, the British Ambassador Anthony Merry (after meeting with the arch-traitor and Burr confidante Colonel Wilkinson) wrote giddily to the British Foreign Secretary explaining his having recruited Burr to the Empire’s cause of creating a new western Confederacy established by a joint U.S.-British war on Mexico with Burr as it’s head. Ambassador Merry wrote:
“I have just received an offer from Mr. Burr, the actual vice president of the United States (which situation he is about to resign) to lend his assistance to His Majesty’s Government in any manner in which they may think fit to employ him, particularly in endeavouring to effect a separation of the western part of the United States from that which lies between the Atlantic and the mountains, in its whole extant. – His propositions on this and other subjects will be fully detailed to your Lordship by Col. Williamson who has been the bearer of them to me, and who will embark for England in a few days. – It is therefore only necessary for me to add that if, after what is generally known of the profligacy of Mr. Burr’s character, His Majesty’s Ministers should think proper to listen to his offer, his present situation in this country where he is now cast off as much by the democratic as by the federal party, and where he still preserves connections with some people of influence, added to his great ambition and spirit of revenge against the present administration, may possibly induce him to exert the talents and activity which he possesses with fidelity to his employers.”
The Plan Modified… Again
It took two more years for Burr’s true colors to come fully to light when in 1807, Burr was discovered to be at the center of the plot outlined by Ambassador Merry. Instead of relying on “free new England” uniting with Canada, this new plan centered on Burr’s dominance of the newly acquired Louisiana Territory sold by Napoleon to America in 1804 as the basis for a new western confederacy.Napoleon’s desire to sell this gigantic territory to the Americans was a surprise to all (including the Americans) and threw a big wrench in British plans to take control of this land and again suffocate the USA as a closed system locked onto the Atlantic Coast as had been attempted with the 1774 Quebec Act earlier.
4
By this time, Burr managed to get President Jefferson to approve putting his co-conspirators into powerful positions of the new Louisiana Territory with Col. Wilkinson appointed Governor.
This new plan involved British soldiers working alongside American mercenaries under Burr’s employ who would first take full control of Louisiana, New Orleans, expand the territory by declaring war on Spain. According to testimonies delivered at Burr’s trial, Burr would then turn his attention to the capital where the sitting president would be deposed, and Burr established as Monarch of a new British American confederation. The British had been caught providing boats and money to the mercenaries (40 British boats and 75 mercenaries were apprehended), correspondences were intercepted and soon Burr was standing in front of the supreme court facing treason charges. The diplomat William Eaton testified that Burr told him that “he would turn Congress neck and heels out of doors, assassinate the President, (or what amounted to that,) and declare himself the protector of an energetic Government.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102005.jpg
Unfortunately, these testimonies somehow did not qualify as the sort of hard evidence needed to convict Burr (and Ambassador Merry’s smoking gun letter was only discovered decades later) resulting in Burr’s unfortunate acquittal.
Popular rage towards the former Vice President made life impossible within the republic and using a $40,000 “gift” from John Jacob Astor, Burr soon made his way in disguise to Canada where his nephew George Prevost was serving as Governor General. Prevost gave Burr letters of introduction to Lord Castlereagh as he embarked on a ship from Nova Scotia to London where Burr stayed at Jeremy Bentham’s mansion for the next 5 years and, in between heavy doses of opium and prostitutes, plotted with the highest echelons of British intelligence a new scheme for the dissolution of the Union (Bentham was the head of British Intelligence Services in those days and extended networks across the globe).
While in London, Burr wrote of Bentham (the pervert who wrote such immoral tracts as In Defense of Usury and In Defense of Pederasty): “He is, indeed, the most perfect model that I have seen or imagined of moral and intellectual excellence. He is the most intimate friend I have in this country, and my constant associate. I live in his house and compose a part of his family.”
Burr Returns Home and a New Plot is Hatched
Finally returning to the United States in the months before the War of 1812, Burr began rebuilding his political machine with a new focus on the use of the Wall Street dominated Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren which would ultimately drive America into a Civil War five decades later.In 1815, Burr laid out the earliest plan for raising the racist puppet Andrew Jackson to the status of President of the USA in a letter to Joseph Alston (Burr’s son-in-law and former Governor of South Carolina) saying:
“If, then, there be a man in the United States of firmness and decision, and having standing enough to afford even a hope of success, it is your duty to hold him up to public view: that man is Andrew Jackson. Nothing is wanting but a respectable nomination, made before the proclamation of the Virginia caucus, and Jackson’s success is inevitable. If this project should accord with your views, I could wish to see you prominent in the execution of it. It must be known to be your work.”
Though it took another decade, the eventual federal takeover of the Burr machine under the combined presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren (ruling from 1828-1840) represented a massive defeat of the Hamiltonian networks then led by John Quincy Adams, William Harrison, Matthew Carey and Henry Clay. The only two successes of the Hamiltonian nationalists then centered in the Whig party to regain control during the 1840-1860 period found Whig presidents dying under mysterious circumstances before they could extract the British rot (Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1852).
Under Jackson and Van Buren, protectionism was dismantled in favor of British free trade, speculation grew rampantly as did the southern slave power as the south was cleansed of Cherokee under the Trail of Tears and given over to racist oligarchs. The National Bank was destroyed in Jackson’s last year in office, cutting the USA off from its only means of generating sovereign credit for development resulting in the panic and depression of 1837. All major infrastructure projects were cancelled under the banner of “paying the debt” and America’s path to dissolution dreamed of by Burr and his Deep State cohorts in 1804 was accelerated in short order. This story is documented thoroughly in Michael Kirsch’s ground breaking 2012 article How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...et06102006.jpg
The role of British operations both within America itself as well as British Canada cannot be overstated when evaluating the short and precarious experience of the United States from 1776 to the present. Were America is to survive the coming maelstroms, then it is safe to say that ignorance of this continuous intention to undo the revolution of 1776 can any longer be tolerated.
In the next installment, I will demonstrate how British Canada was used during the bloody 1861-1865 Civil War to destroy Lincoln’s efforts to save the beleaguered union from the North while simultaneously fighting to stop the British-funded secessionist movements from the South. During this exercise, don’t be surprised to discover that Lincoln’s murder was deployed from the Confederate Secret Services stronghold of Montreal, or that Canada’s modern origins as an 1867 “northern confederacy” were shaped purely by a geopolitical desire to break the republic during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Lastly… keep in mind that these historical lessons are not about the past, but rather are about our future.
- Post #9,233
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 7:15pm Oct 9, 2020 7:15pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...troy-republic/
History as Warfare: The ‘1619 Project’ and the Plot to Destroy the Republic
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...kLeUXWRoIw.png
Matthew Ehret
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...0qIKaFDElw.png
October 4, 2020
Photo: SCF
“Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof shuts out the sky.”
– Marquis St. Evrémonde (from Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities)
A major cultural fight has broken out between Donald Trump’s recently announced 1776 Commission and the NY Times’ 1619 Project.
While Trump’s commission designed to “promote patriotic history” naively paints over some glaring hypocrisies of American history by placing figures like Hamilton, Jackson, Jefferson and Lincoln in the same boat (thus keeping a bit too much bathwater along with the baby), it does represent an important major cultural battle over the soul of America which is now sitting precariously upon a new civil war, military coup threat and total disintegration.
In his recent Sept. 17 speech attacking the 1619 Project and announcing his 1776 Commission, Trump said quite rightfully:
“Whether it is the mob on the street, or the “cancel culture” in the boardroom, the goal is the same: to silence dissent, to scare you out of speaking the truth, and to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage, and their way of life.
“We are here today to declare that we will never submit to tyranny. We will reclaim our history and our country for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.
“The radicals burning American flags want to burn down the principles in our founding documents, including the bedrock principle of equal justice under law. In order to radically transform America, they must first cause Americans to lose confidence in who we are, where we come from, and what we believe…. The left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.”
Attacking the underpinnings of Critical Race theory which attempts to assert that belief in rational thought, hard work and the nuclear family were the result of “whiteness”, Trump invoked Martin Luther King saying:
“where children are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Critical Race Theory, the 1619 project, and the crusade against American history, are toxic propaganda, ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together. It will destroy our country.”
During its short existence, this “project” has quickly won over thousands of academics, and in spite of its proven fallacies (which it had to secretly cover up in Orwellian fashion), Jones was still awarded the Pulitzer Prize legitimizing the fraud in the minds of countless school administrators, policy-makers and academics.
If one truly accepts the claims of the 1619 Project which have become turned into a Pulitzer curriculum and already embedded in 4500 U.S. schools, then America’s dissolution would be no great loss to the world. In fact, one would have to conclude that since the republic was always built upon the defense of slavery (going so far as to paint the British Empire as an anti-slavery bastion which the founding fathers broke away from only due to their fear of having their slaves removed), then America was always… evil.
Don’t believe me? Let the facts speak for themselves.
By 1784, six states in the new nation had voted to totally abolish slavery (Rhode Island in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1781, New Hampshire in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784), while the importation of all new slaves was banned by every other state by 1793. The important Northwest Ordinances passed in the 1787 Continental Congress ensured that no slavery would be permitted in the immense North West Territories (giving rise to the later addition of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin as free states). This agreement was established during the 1774 Continental Congress where a non-importation act was signed by all colonies stating: “That we will neither import, nor purchase any slave imported, after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”
Additionally, IF it were true that the 1776 revolution were driven by the intent to protect the slave economy from the freedom-loving British Empire, then why did England only ban slavery in 1807 and why did they wait until 1833 to begin extending this ban across their colonies?? Did the founding fathers have a crystal ball and act on events that would occur only 65 years in the future? If the British truly hated slavery so much, then why did the empire maintain a global system of subjugation, famine and exploitation across Asia, Ireland and beyond for so many generations?
So what happened? Was the British Empire seriously pushing an anti-slavery agenda? Why did America’s anti-slave trajectory fall apart so soon after the revolution and why did the rot spread to the point of necessitating a Civil War by 1861?
How to proceed with a serious investigation?
Approaching the matter this way will cause the inquiring mind to confront the battle between two opposing paradigms of statecraft which defined the world in which the American revolution arose as part of an international phenomenon involving leaders from Russia, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, India and Morocco.
The battle over what sort of system of economics would govern America after political independence was achieved in 1783 will here become a very valuable question.
Where certain players of that age believed that “value” should be locked into rules of money-worship and profit (which all people desired since money bought pleasure and helped us avoid pain), others disagreed and believed value should be looked for elsewhere. These others believed that value transcended matters of pleasure/pain and touched upon something less transient and more universal… but what?
Lay wrote: “No greater sin Hell can invent than to prophane and blaspheme the pure and Holy Truth, which is God all in all, and remove God’s creatures made after his own image, from all the comforts of life and their country… and bring them into all the miseries that dragons, serpents, devils and hypocrites can procure and think of”.
In the mind of Franklin and his co-thinkers these issues (economics and slavery) represented two sides of the same fight.
Franklin argued in his many writings that “value” originated in what you create that satisfies the needs of humanity, and not what “things” you possess or wish to consume. Since a society of creators/producers requires sovereign manufacturing to generate real wealth and constant internal improvements of infrastructure to coordinate the development of all parts of a nation under a unified intention, Franklin recognized clearly that the production generated by “slave labor” is a chimera and actually represented a form of “anti-value”. Like heroine consumption today, anti-value simply means any form of “momentary profits” that might even be measurable as GDP and generate money flows, but actually represent a destruction of that society’s ability to sustain its own existence over time. (1)
The reason for this is simple.
Slavery destroys the creative powers of mentation in both the laboring slave who is valued only for their animal labor, and also the decadent slave master who’s potential for creativity becomes narrowly defined by ways to keep the slave under control.
It is thus no coincidence that Franklin also created the anti-slavery alliance in the 1760s and later founded the 1785 Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves” alongside several of his devoted proteges. These proteges included the figures of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Gouvernor Morris who all happened to become the creators and leaders of the “American System of political economy” premised on the use of a national bank, productive credit, protective tariffs, and large scale manufacturing to promote the economic sovereignty of the new nation. I introduced some of this in my recent essay How to Save a Dying Republic: Hamilton’s Genius.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041001.jpg
When Jefferson took control of the Presidency from 1801-1809, a major victory was won for the pro-slavery oligarchs of America who saw immense profits to be gained by spreading their peculiar form of society under a perverse form of Manifest Destiny.
Admittedly, these oligarchs would have been much happier with the victory of Aaron Burr to the presidency in 1801 since an immediate dissolution of the union would have occurred between slave and free states as early as 1804 (to be discussed in a future essay). Unlike Burr, Jefferson was at least against breaking up the Union into northern and southern confederacies (with the free states merging with Canada and the slave states becoming their own nation), and that is why Hamilton (Jefferson’s political nemesis) ironically organized aggressively for his victory winning the fatal ire of Burr.
Sadly, Jefferson’s devout belief in agrarianism, hate for manufacturing, love of slavery, and British enlightenment thinking still made him an instrument for the slave power’s cancerous growth during his terms in office.
By 1840 over 20% of the British population was employed in textiles under such anti-human conditions that Charles Dickens described in his Tale of Two Cities and other writings.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041002.jpg
An astute Whig economist looking upon this bipolar process in America (while comparing it to the depressingly stagnant Canadian economic situation of 1791-1850) stated in 1853:
“Though the ratio of the increase of the population has been greater in Canada than in the United States, yet their increase of wealth has barely kept pace with the population, and they are as poor as they were half a century since. They have enjoyed the blessings of Free Trade with England all the time, we have only a part of the time. Whenever we have attempted to supply ourselves by our own industry, with the comforts and necessaries of life, we have improved our condition as a people; and during the intervals of Free Trade and large importations of foreign goods, we have relapsed again into a condition bordering on bankruptcy; while the Canadians have been constantly exhausted, and kept so poor by Free Trade, as to be unable to get sufficient credit to have even the ups and downs of prosperity and bankruptcy in succession.” (2)
This story is told in all of its ugly detail in historian Michael Kirsch’s groundbreaking 2012 study “How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States”.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041003.jpg
Between 1801 to 1840, southern cotton exports exploded from 100 000 bales/year to 1 million bales/year with 80% of the exports going to Britain. The City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans triangle dominated the world system with New Orleans representing over 12% of all U.S. banking capital. The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas. This degeneration proceeded slowly until the presidencies of Jackson and his handler Martin van Buren, but after this, cotton exports increased to 4 million bales/year by 1860 and the slave power grew immensely under the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that ensured the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041004.jpg
While many radical abolitionists in the USA and British Canada then advocated the dissolution of the union as an alternative to civil war, stronger souls like Frederick Douglass recognized the higher historic fight at hand. As a lesson to modern anarchists who believe in the 1619 Project and feel no sorrow at the burning of America under a new civil war today, Douglass took the time to research history, and broke with William Lloyd Garrison (the leader of the abolitionist movement) defending the Constitution in 1852:
“I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory… In that instrument [the U.S. Constitution] I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a Glorious Liberty Document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it”.
This higher understanding of history and the principles of the Constitution caused Douglass to ally himself with Lincoln where he worked with all his might to recruit 200 000 black soldiers to the cause. Later in life, Douglass attacked British free trade and “cheap labor” in defense of the Nationalist system writing in 1871:
“Cheap Labor, is a phrase that has no cheering music for the masses. Those who demand it, and seek to acquire it, have but little sympathy with common humanity. It is the cry of the few against the many. When we inquire who are the men that are continually vociferating for cheap labor, we find not the poor, the simple, and the lowly; not the class who dig and toil for their daily bread; not the landless, feeble, and defenseless portion of society, but the rich and powerful, the crafty and scheming, those who live by the sweat of other men’s faces.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041005.jpg
The British Hand Behind the Civil War
During the entirety of the Civil War, the British Empire’s guiding hand could always be felt, from supplying the south with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. Even British Canada was given over to the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
Speaking to the British Parliament, Lord Robert Cecil (Marquis of Salisbury) expressed Britain’s logic succinctly when he said in 1861:
“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…. With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.”
A future instalment will tackle the role of British operations in Canada that organized the murder of Lincoln, sabotaged the industrial reconstruction of the South, and undid the internationalization of Lincoln’s system around the world during the 19-20th centuries. This sabotage of potential created the foundations for the creature embedded within America now organizing a new Civil War and dissolution of the republic once and for all.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
(1) In the minds of those dirigistes like Franklin (including the Colbertist school of France, and its international leaders like Jonathon Swift, Daniel Dafoe, and Cotton Mathers in America who all wrote pamphlets supporting manufacturing over slave labor), a machine produced by the creative mind of man can accomplish the work of 100 laborers- thus liberating those laborers from the demands of the material forces of nature and freeing them to develop their powers of mind.
(2) Ezra Champion Seaman, Essays on the Progress of Nations (1853), p. 599
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Tags:
British EmpireCivil WarConstitutionHistoryUnited States
History as Warfare: The ‘1619 Project’ and the Plot to Destroy the Republic
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...kLeUXWRoIw.png
Matthew Ehret
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...0qIKaFDElw.png
October 4, 2020
Photo: SCF
“Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof shuts out the sky.”
– Marquis St. Evrémonde (from Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities)
A major cultural fight has broken out between Donald Trump’s recently announced 1776 Commission and the NY Times’ 1619 Project.
While Trump’s commission designed to “promote patriotic history” naively paints over some glaring hypocrisies of American history by placing figures like Hamilton, Jackson, Jefferson and Lincoln in the same boat (thus keeping a bit too much bathwater along with the baby), it does represent an important major cultural battle over the soul of America which is now sitting precariously upon a new civil war, military coup threat and total disintegration.
In his recent Sept. 17 speech attacking the 1619 Project and announcing his 1776 Commission, Trump said quite rightfully:
“Whether it is the mob on the street, or the “cancel culture” in the boardroom, the goal is the same: to silence dissent, to scare you out of speaking the truth, and to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage, and their way of life.
“We are here today to declare that we will never submit to tyranny. We will reclaim our history and our country for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.
“The radicals burning American flags want to burn down the principles in our founding documents, including the bedrock principle of equal justice under law. In order to radically transform America, they must first cause Americans to lose confidence in who we are, where we come from, and what we believe…. The left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.”
Attacking the underpinnings of Critical Race theory which attempts to assert that belief in rational thought, hard work and the nuclear family were the result of “whiteness”, Trump invoked Martin Luther King saying:
“where children are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Critical Race Theory, the 1619 project, and the crusade against American history, are toxic propaganda, ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together. It will destroy our country.”
What is the 1619 Project?
The New York Times’ 1619 Project which was unveiled in June 2019 by Nikole Hannah-Jones and attempts to smear the entirety of American history as simply a slave-promoting fraud from the moment the first slave arrived in Jonestown in 1619.During its short existence, this “project” has quickly won over thousands of academics, and in spite of its proven fallacies (which it had to secretly cover up in Orwellian fashion), Jones was still awarded the Pulitzer Prize legitimizing the fraud in the minds of countless school administrators, policy-makers and academics.
If one truly accepts the claims of the 1619 Project which have become turned into a Pulitzer curriculum and already embedded in 4500 U.S. schools, then America’s dissolution would be no great loss to the world. In fact, one would have to conclude that since the republic was always built upon the defense of slavery (going so far as to paint the British Empire as an anti-slavery bastion which the founding fathers broke away from only due to their fear of having their slaves removed), then America was always… evil.
The First Paradox
If it were true that the creation of the American republic was just driven by a desire to protect the institution of slavery from the abolition-loving British then it should be asked: why did every American state shut down the African slave trade by 1793??”Don’t believe me? Let the facts speak for themselves.
By 1784, six states in the new nation had voted to totally abolish slavery (Rhode Island in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1781, New Hampshire in 1783 and Connecticut in 1784), while the importation of all new slaves was banned by every other state by 1793. The important Northwest Ordinances passed in the 1787 Continental Congress ensured that no slavery would be permitted in the immense North West Territories (giving rise to the later addition of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin as free states). This agreement was established during the 1774 Continental Congress where a non-importation act was signed by all colonies stating: “That we will neither import, nor purchase any slave imported, after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”
Another Paradox
If Britain was threatening to end the slave trade as the 1619 Project authors teach, then why did the Empire override dozens of petitions from the colonies between 1650-1765 demanding an end to slavery? Rather than oppose slavery, the British Royal Africa Company, under the direction of the Privy Council, and Board of Trade enforced the mass important of 8 million African slaves into the Americas during the 18th century alone! These same organizations constantly strove to destroy all efforts to establish manufacturing within the colonies from 1630-1765 which everyone knew was the only effective pathway to liberating a society from reliance on slave labor.Additionally, IF it were true that the 1776 revolution were driven by the intent to protect the slave economy from the freedom-loving British Empire, then why did England only ban slavery in 1807 and why did they wait until 1833 to begin extending this ban across their colonies?? Did the founding fathers have a crystal ball and act on events that would occur only 65 years in the future? If the British truly hated slavery so much, then why did the empire maintain a global system of subjugation, famine and exploitation across Asia, Ireland and beyond for so many generations?
So what happened? Was the British Empire seriously pushing an anti-slavery agenda? Why did America’s anti-slave trajectory fall apart so soon after the revolution and why did the rot spread to the point of necessitating a Civil War by 1861?
How to proceed with a serious investigation?
The Matter of Money
Since one of the most effective keys to understanding history starts with the question of “who controls the money”, economics is a good place to start.Approaching the matter this way will cause the inquiring mind to confront the battle between two opposing paradigms of statecraft which defined the world in which the American revolution arose as part of an international phenomenon involving leaders from Russia, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, India and Morocco.
The battle over what sort of system of economics would govern America after political independence was achieved in 1783 will here become a very valuable question.
Where certain players of that age believed that “value” should be locked into rules of money-worship and profit (which all people desired since money bought pleasure and helped us avoid pain), others disagreed and believed value should be looked for elsewhere. These others believed that value transcended matters of pleasure/pain and touched upon something less transient and more universal… but what?
Introducing Ben Franklin
During the 18th century, these latter forces centered themselves around the figure of America’s “father of founding fathers” Benjamin Franklin who drafted some of the most important policies that led to the sovereign control over currency from his 1729 On the Necessity for a Paper Currency, onwards. Franklin used his powerful printing presses to spread both sovereign banking and anti-slavery pamphlets, books and treatises for decades before the revolution itself was declared in 1775. One of the most powerful anti-slavery books printed by Franklin was the influential 1737 ‘All Slave Keepers Who Keep the Innocent in Bondage’ by Benjamin Lay which argued that any Christian keeping slaves was an offense against God.Lay wrote: “No greater sin Hell can invent than to prophane and blaspheme the pure and Holy Truth, which is God all in all, and remove God’s creatures made after his own image, from all the comforts of life and their country… and bring them into all the miseries that dragons, serpents, devils and hypocrites can procure and think of”.
In the mind of Franklin and his co-thinkers these issues (economics and slavery) represented two sides of the same fight.
Franklin argued in his many writings that “value” originated in what you create that satisfies the needs of humanity, and not what “things” you possess or wish to consume. Since a society of creators/producers requires sovereign manufacturing to generate real wealth and constant internal improvements of infrastructure to coordinate the development of all parts of a nation under a unified intention, Franklin recognized clearly that the production generated by “slave labor” is a chimera and actually represented a form of “anti-value”. Like heroine consumption today, anti-value simply means any form of “momentary profits” that might even be measurable as GDP and generate money flows, but actually represent a destruction of that society’s ability to sustain its own existence over time. (1)
The reason for this is simple.
Slavery destroys the creative powers of mentation in both the laboring slave who is valued only for their animal labor, and also the decadent slave master who’s potential for creativity becomes narrowly defined by ways to keep the slave under control.
It is thus no coincidence that Franklin also created the anti-slavery alliance in the 1760s and later founded the 1785 Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves” alongside several of his devoted proteges. These proteges included the figures of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Gouvernor Morris who all happened to become the creators and leaders of the “American System of political economy” premised on the use of a national bank, productive credit, protective tariffs, and large scale manufacturing to promote the economic sovereignty of the new nation. I introduced some of this in my recent essay How to Save a Dying Republic: Hamilton’s Genius.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041001.jpg
When Jefferson took control of the Presidency from 1801-1809, a major victory was won for the pro-slavery oligarchs of America who saw immense profits to be gained by spreading their peculiar form of society under a perverse form of Manifest Destiny.
Admittedly, these oligarchs would have been much happier with the victory of Aaron Burr to the presidency in 1801 since an immediate dissolution of the union would have occurred between slave and free states as early as 1804 (to be discussed in a future essay). Unlike Burr, Jefferson was at least against breaking up the Union into northern and southern confederacies (with the free states merging with Canada and the slave states becoming their own nation), and that is why Hamilton (Jefferson’s political nemesis) ironically organized aggressively for his victory winning the fatal ire of Burr.
Sadly, Jefferson’s devout belief in agrarianism, hate for manufacturing, love of slavery, and British enlightenment thinking still made him an instrument for the slave power’s cancerous growth during his terms in office.
The British Empire’s Global Game
By destroying Indian textiles and subduing the “Chinese dragon” with a program of mass opium consumption that would stain the 19th century, the City of London quickly took control of world textile manufactures which created a primary export market for southern slave plantation cotton and a new set of addictions began: the addiction to the easy money derived from cheap slave labor. This proto globalization established a global closed system of controls onto all nations through cash cropping, free trade, speculation and drugs.By 1840 over 20% of the British population was employed in textiles under such anti-human conditions that Charles Dickens described in his Tale of Two Cities and other writings.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041002.jpg
The Best of Times and Worst of Times
With the 1804 murder of Hamilton, and undermining of America’s national credit system between 1804-1836, British free trade grew as protective tariffs were taken down, and credit towards infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal, roads, rail, etc shriveled up. Speculation ran rampant whenever this monetarist system was unleashed driven by booms and busts and the rise of “state-rights” programs that superseded all national initiatives. This process was taken directly from classic divide to conquer tactics which I outlined in my last essay Lincoln and the Greenbacks.An astute Whig economist looking upon this bipolar process in America (while comparing it to the depressingly stagnant Canadian economic situation of 1791-1850) stated in 1853:
“Though the ratio of the increase of the population has been greater in Canada than in the United States, yet their increase of wealth has barely kept pace with the population, and they are as poor as they were half a century since. They have enjoyed the blessings of Free Trade with England all the time, we have only a part of the time. Whenever we have attempted to supply ourselves by our own industry, with the comforts and necessaries of life, we have improved our condition as a people; and during the intervals of Free Trade and large importations of foreign goods, we have relapsed again into a condition bordering on bankruptcy; while the Canadians have been constantly exhausted, and kept so poor by Free Trade, as to be unable to get sufficient credit to have even the ups and downs of prosperity and bankruptcy in succession.” (2)
The Slave Power Spreads
By 1836, the 2nd National Bank was officially killed after a mass propaganda campaign convinced a duped mob that it was an instrument of tyranny in America, and over the coming 6 decades, the only five presidents who would make any serious effort towards reviving America’s nationalist system would end up dead while in office (Harrison in 1841, Taylor in 1850, Lincoln in 1865, Garfield in 1880, and McKinley in 1901). The man who is today celebrated for having “killed the bank” and “paying Americas debts” was in reality a force of pure destruction. Jackson “paid the debt” by cutting all infrastructure projects and unleashing mass speculation which resulted in a devastating 1837 bank panic that drove the nation into discord and depression. An unrepentant racist, Jackson also gave enormous assistance to the slavocracy by emptying the southern lands of Cherokee in the genocidal “Trail of Tears” and giving the land over to cotton planting oligarchs loyal only to their profits, “way of life” and the British Empire.This story is told in all of its ugly detail in historian Michael Kirsch’s groundbreaking 2012 study “How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States”.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041003.jpg
Between 1801 to 1840, southern cotton exports exploded from 100 000 bales/year to 1 million bales/year with 80% of the exports going to Britain. The City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans triangle dominated the world system with New Orleans representing over 12% of all U.S. banking capital. The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas. This degeneration proceeded slowly until the presidencies of Jackson and his handler Martin van Buren, but after this, cotton exports increased to 4 million bales/year by 1860 and the slave power grew immensely under the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that ensured the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041004.jpg
While many radical abolitionists in the USA and British Canada then advocated the dissolution of the union as an alternative to civil war, stronger souls like Frederick Douglass recognized the higher historic fight at hand. As a lesson to modern anarchists who believe in the 1619 Project and feel no sorrow at the burning of America under a new civil war today, Douglass took the time to research history, and broke with William Lloyd Garrison (the leader of the abolitionist movement) defending the Constitution in 1852:
“I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory… In that instrument [the U.S. Constitution] I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a Glorious Liberty Document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it”.
This higher understanding of history and the principles of the Constitution caused Douglass to ally himself with Lincoln where he worked with all his might to recruit 200 000 black soldiers to the cause. Later in life, Douglass attacked British free trade and “cheap labor” in defense of the Nationalist system writing in 1871:
“Cheap Labor, is a phrase that has no cheering music for the masses. Those who demand it, and seek to acquire it, have but little sympathy with common humanity. It is the cry of the few against the many. When we inquire who are the men that are continually vociferating for cheap labor, we find not the poor, the simple, and the lowly; not the class who dig and toil for their daily bread; not the landless, feeble, and defenseless portion of society, but the rich and powerful, the crafty and scheming, those who live by the sweat of other men’s faces.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp...hret041005.jpg
The British Hand Behind the Civil War
During the entirety of the Civil War, the British Empire’s guiding hand could always be felt, from supplying the south with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. Even British Canada was given over to the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
Speaking to the British Parliament, Lord Robert Cecil (Marquis of Salisbury) expressed Britain’s logic succinctly when he said in 1861:
“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…. With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.”
A future instalment will tackle the role of British operations in Canada that organized the murder of Lincoln, sabotaged the industrial reconstruction of the South, and undid the internationalization of Lincoln’s system around the world during the 19-20th centuries. This sabotage of potential created the foundations for the creature embedded within America now organizing a new Civil War and dissolution of the republic once and for all.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
(1) In the minds of those dirigistes like Franklin (including the Colbertist school of France, and its international leaders like Jonathon Swift, Daniel Dafoe, and Cotton Mathers in America who all wrote pamphlets supporting manufacturing over slave labor), a machine produced by the creative mind of man can accomplish the work of 100 laborers- thus liberating those laborers from the demands of the material forces of nature and freeing them to develop their powers of mind.
(2) Ezra Champion Seaman, Essays on the Progress of Nations (1853), p. 599
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Tags:
British EmpireCivil WarConstitutionHistoryUnited States
- Post #9,234
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 7:25pm Oct 9, 2020 7:25pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
Inserted Video
- Post #9,235
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 7:28pm Oct 9, 2020 7:28pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/bit...ops+to+zero%29
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,
It’s been a whirlwind week in the cryptocurrency world. There have been a rash of news items all pointing towards the same thing - attempts to rein in alternatives to the future of central bank digital currencies (CBDC) that are quickly creeping up over the horizon.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...4049752987.png
It started with the CFTC’s indictment of the owners of crypto-exchange BitMex after more than a year of investigation last week.
Even if its founders are not convicted, this might still spell the end of the embattled BitMEX. In tandem with the criminal indictments, the CFTC also launched a civil action against the BitMEX network of companies and its founders.
The formal counts on which the CFTC seeks relief are:
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,
It’s been a whirlwind week in the cryptocurrency world. There have been a rash of news items all pointing towards the same thing - attempts to rein in alternatives to the future of central bank digital currencies (CBDC) that are quickly creeping up over the horizon.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...4049752987.png
It started with the CFTC’s indictment of the owners of crypto-exchange BitMex after more than a year of investigation last week.
Even if its founders are not convicted, this might still spell the end of the embattled BitMEX. In tandem with the criminal indictments, the CFTC also launched a civil action against the BitMEX network of companies and its founders.
The formal counts on which the CFTC seeks relief are:
- Executing futures transactions without registering with the CFTC
- Offering illegal off-exchange commodity options
- Failure to register as a futures commission merchant
- Failure to register as a designated contract market/swap execution facility
- Failure to supervise in relation to its lack of KYC and AML procedures and failing to ensure that its partners and employees lawfully handled BitMEX accounts
- Failure to implement KYC and AML procedures as required under the CEA
That put a lid on a nascent rally in Bitcoin which was beginning to challenge $11,000. The net result was a $500 move down and killing any potential short-term bullish momentum. It should have seen a breakdown below support at $9800 (orange line, see chart) but that didn’t happen.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...es/bfm3FD9.jpg
Since then Bitcoin has been bouncing around between $10,400 and $10,900 without any real direction, continuing to coil and consolidate.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...es/bfmE539.jpg
But despite the violent intra-day reaction Bitcoin weathered that news item well, with last week’s volatility dropping off to next to nothing.
You Can’t Win
Today the market shrugged off two major pieces of news from officialdom. The first was the U.K.’ Financial Conduct Authority banning the sale of all products that move with the price of crypto-assets.
From Zerohedge:
The Financial Conduct Authority said there is “no reliable basis for valuing cryptoassets” that act as the underlying for derivatives and exchange-traded notes.
The FCA had already alluded to the idea in a public consultation on the industry last year and the regulator claims it the ban will save retail investors $69 million. The ban is scheduled to take effect on January 6, 2021.
The FCA further claimed there is a, “lack of legitimate need to invest” in products like Bitcoin.
What I want to know who determines where the legitimate needs of investors lie? I thought that was supposed to be up to investors to assess the risks and make their bets.
I guess they are now only allowed to invest in openly rigged markets like U.K. Gilts because that serves the legitimate needs of a U.K. government in serious financial trouble.
What’s clear from this move by the FCA is that the U.K. and City of London are far more worried about further leakage of funds out of their nigh-criminal Ponzi schemes and into the world of cryptocurrencies they have little to no control over.
This is another tell, just like the Fed intervening deeply into the TIPS markets at the end of Q3 to mask that real interest rates have been rising, that there is groundwork being laid for a seismic shift in the monetary system due to the continued deterioration of asset price supports post-Coronapocalypse.
Martin Armstrong has been warning crypto-enthusiasts, like myself, for a long time that governments would move to make them illegal to own and/or transact in.
And I don’t disagree with Martin. Here is an open example by a major government regulator to stymie competition to not only the existing failing monetary system but also to the one they have planned to replace it with.
The ECB is obviously accelerating their digital euro plans with the latest move to trademark it.
The European Commission recently published a comprehensive 168-pages draft proposal on how the digital assets can be integrated into the European legal framework. The document covers various aspects of the new financial tool and touches upon the benefits of the central bank-issued digital currencies (CDBC) over the fiat money.
Notice how that new ECB report talks about the benefits of a central bank digital currency, but never the downside, because the benefits are all to them.
You Can’t Break Even
It’s the same shuck and jive Attorney General William Barr is doing by having the U.S. Attorney’s Office issue its guidelines on digital currencies called Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework (full text at the link above).
I skimmed the rules and the justifications for this legal framework and all it does is list the reasons why private cryptocurrencies are bad. We all know the drill — money laundering, financing terrorism, tax evasion, sanctions evasion etc.
Given that we can’t seem to go more than a week without another major bank getting a slap on the wrist and a fine for laundering hundreds of billions of dollars, usually for some intelligence agency, again I have to wonder why should the private crypto-world be any different than the supposedly legitimate one.
The problem with all of this is that when government intervenes in any market it creates both the incentive and the profit opportunity to evade that intervention.
The mere existence of Bitcoin and the muti-hundred billion dollar equivalent cryptocurrency market is damning evidence of government malfeasance as a steward of our money.
But we’re the criminals in wanting to avoid the worst of their bad policy?
Of course, the real criminals are the ones that lie, cheat and steal by managing the monetary system badly but for their benefit. Which is why their enforcers, like Barr and the FCA, have to step in and tell us how they will prosecute us for wanting something better or outright make it illegal to make a market in them via futures and options.
These rules are an open admission that the current system is failing and the Bitcoin and the tokenization of assets collectively known as DeFi — Decentralized Finance — are real threats to the ultimate power of the their state apparatuses.
These rule systems are designed not to protect investors and consumers but to protect the existing beneficiaries of the existing system and whatever they are planning next.
And what they are planning is their version of Bitcoin, but with none of the trust, privacy, or lack of counterfeiting and counter-party risk that Bitcoin and other private cryptos offer.
In fact, they will be the exact opposite of this with absolute chain-of-custody, zero-privacy, and ability to be seized from a holder’s account for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
You Can’t Get out of the Game
In a time when politics is so divisive people are literally cheering the unpersoning and deplatforming of people they disagree with does anyone really think those drunk with power in D.C., Westminster, Beijing or Brussels wouldn’t use the new power afforded by a non-convertible digital cash for the most extreme political leverage?
Every day that passes as we approach this election in the U.S. brings the story of the Great Reset more sharply into focus. And that future looks a lot like the world depicted in Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report but without the three precogs.
That film’s future was designed in consultation with ‘all the best experts on where we were headed’ in terms of surveillance, technology, robotics, everything. And who do you think Spielberg, a Davos man if there ever was one in Hollywood, consulted?
It surely wasn’t the underground cryptography enthusiasts guys like Neal Stephenson was hanging around with when he wrote Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle (highly recommended as the last decent things Stephenson wrote before he too was infected with the shitlib virus after spending too much time in Seattle).
That was a future in which a person became an unperson in the time it took for one person to issue a command and press a button. It also was a world envisioned before the advent of private, trustless digital currencies like Bitcoin.
And therein lies the difference in how we move through this next period of history.
There is no doubt in my mind today that the Great Reset of the World Economic Forum is in process and that nothing — not Brexit, Bitcoin or the re-election of Donald Trump — will stop the attempt to pull it off.
Because the System of the World (as Stephenson called it) is failing. The cost of maintaining the illusion of prosperity dwarfs the return on the investment in it. This is why we are drowning in debt and why the system has, for all intents and purposes, stalled.
Regaining the Reactionary Gap
What is happening is happening in real time, right in front of us as the powerful move to protect themselves and work through their plans to set up their neo-feudal Utopia.
I don’t know that they’ll pull it off and I sincerely hope they don’t because that’s a world too terrible to contemplate. But what I do know is that the harder they push the harder the push back will be.
Because while they can manipulate the Overton Window and the rules of engagement the laws of physics they can’t repeal. You know the one I’m talking about, Newton’s Third Law - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
And while Newton may have been the most famous Master of the British Mint who re-established the legitimacy of Britain’s coinage the irony is his doing so allowed the Bank of England to get established and touch off the Era of Central Banking.
Today Bitcoin is the natural reaction to the end of that era, where Central Banks have been exposed as running immense Ponzi schemes which have created the conditions which have the world teetering on the edge of systemic collapse.
Will it and those that are building its parallel infrastructure be the ones who ultimately reboot the System of the World when this latest attempt to retain control fails?
Or will we muddle along for another generational cycle under the boot heel of venal men?
* * *
Join My Patreon to keep up to date with how the Great Reset unfolds. Install the Brave Browser to regain a little control over the flow of your information in a world without privacy.
- Post #9,236
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 7:59pm Oct 9, 2020 7:59pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,237
- Quote
- Oct 9, 2020 8:15pm Oct 9, 2020 8:15pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,238
- Quote
- Oct 10, 2020 7:16am Oct 10, 2020 7:16am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
Inserted Video
- Post #9,239
- Quote
- Oct 10, 2020 7:19am Oct 10, 2020 7:19am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts
- Post #9,240
- Quote
- Oct 10, 2020 7:39am Oct 10, 2020 7:39am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,506 Posts