Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

http://investmentresearchdynamics.co...ervalued-ever/

Bubble, Bubble, Fraud And Trouble – S&P 500 Most Overvalued Ever
April 7, 2015 Financial Markets, Market Manipulation, U.S. EconomyGAAP accounting, Julian Roberston, stock market bubbleadmin

(Note: apologies to Shakespeare for my blog title)
We can certainly see a 2008-like market crash because “the bigger this bubble gets, the bigger the burst…I am looking at a bubble that is almost sure to pop at some time and I don’t know when it’s going to happen, but I know it’s going to happen. – this quote and the one below sourced from Zerohedge.com


The Fed and the U.S. Treasury (via its Working Group on Financial Markets) – collectively known as the Plunge Protection Team – have created both stock and bond market bubbles of unprecedented magnitude. I think the only market professionals who refuse to acknowledge this are the highly inappropriate hosts and Wall Street guests that have infested the media like ebola has infested West Africa.


But a constant source of irritation for me is the fact that analysts, and even respected market professionals like Julian Robertson, erroneously reference the current stock market (S&P 500) p/e ratio in comparison to historical points in time.

The latest example is Roberston’s appearance on Fox Business.
Robertson’s commented about the bubbles that have been methodically blown by the PPT:
The thing that worries me the most are the twin bubbles [stocks, bonds] that are developing, certainly the Federal Reserve, the people that run their Treasury operations, are trying to create a bubble in bonds and they are doing it.


In reference to Robertson’s comments, Zerohedge asserts that the current forward GAAP p/e for the S&P 500 is 21x. No. It’s not. In order to make historical comparisons we have to implement comparable accounting measures. The GAAP accounting used in 1999 is not the same as the one used in 2007 and the GAAP used in 2007 is not the same as the one used currently.

Every change made to GAAP has enabled U.S. corporations – especially the banks – to use highly questionable accounting gimmicks in order to increase GAAP-reported net income and earnings per share. By now everyone knows about the nefarious non-cash accruals like “mark to market” mark-ups of highly illiquid fixed income holdings which load huge non-cash gains into GAAP-reported net income. There have been likewise liberalizations of GAAP standards which benefit non-financial companies as well.


These accounting changes are not just ludicrous – they enable outright fraud. All bubbles/Ponzis are engendered with massive fraud.


Having said that, and without going through the arduous task of translating current S&P 500 earnings into 2007 or 1999 or 1929 equivalents, it is beyond any possible doubt that the current S&P 500 GAAP-reported earnings per share would be significantly lower using historical GAAP standards. The current “Shiller” S&P 500 p/e ratio is said to be 27.2x. However, my best guess would be that if 1999 GAAP standards were applied to the current “Shiller” S&P 500 trailing earnings, the current p/e ratio would be well in excess of 50x (vs. just under 45x in 1999).


That being the case, the current stock market has – by far – the highest p/e ratio in history and is therefore – by far – the most over-valued in history. I just wish highly visible market participants like Julian Robertson or Marc Faber or Peter Schiff would reiterate the facts I just presented. Because currently EVERYONE who is using the commonly cited comparison metrics is using fraudulent numbers.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...he-crosshairs/

Trump Betrays Trumpism: Syria in the Crosshairs

Are we going to war based on fake intelligence?

by Justin Raimondo, April 07, 2017



President Donald Trump has launched an attack on a Syrian air base in retaliation for the alleged sarin gas attack supposedly carried out by Bashar al-Assad’s government on Islamist rebels in Idlib. The irony is this contradicts every statement he ever made about Syria in the presidential campaign. Furthermore, this attack takes place barely 72 hours after the alleged incident, with no clear evidence that Assad was responsible.


In ordering this strike – more than 50 missiles launched by US ships in the Mediterranean Sea – Trump has blown up a basic tenet of Trumpism to smithereens.
One of my vivid memories of the 2016 campaign is the look on Bill O’Reilly’s face when Donald Trump answered his question about intervening militarily in Syria and the Russian role in that country:


“O’Reilly: “Once Putin gets in and fights ISIS on behalf of Assad, Putin runs Syria. He owns it. He’ll never get out, never.
Trump: “Alright, okay, fine. I mean, you know, we can be in Syria. Do you want to run Syria? Do you want to own Syria? I want to rebuild our country.”
Here’s a tweet – in all caps, no less – from 2013, in which Trump gave vent to his views about intervening in the Syrian mess:
http://original.antiwar.com/wp-conte...ssie-tweet.jpg
And then there’s this statement, uttered in a speech to his supporters after the election during his “victory tour”:
http://original.antiwar.com/wp-conte...rump-tweet.jpg
I could go on, but you get the picture: Trump campaigned against precisely the kind of intervention that he is now launching. At a news conference in the Rose Garden, with King Abdullah of Jordan looking on, he said:
“I now have responsibility. It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies – babies, little babies – with a chemical gas that is so lethal … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line…. I do change and I am flexible. That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact. It was a horrible, horrible thing. It’s very, very possible that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”


Twenty-four hours after the alleged incident – with the United Nations still refusing to say whether there had been a gas attack, or, if so, who is responsible – the President of the United States does a complete turnaround, ditches a campaign promise, and takes us to the brink of a greatly expanded war in Syria.
For a little extra irony, those who have been smearing him as a “Russian agent” and are trying to destroy his presidency are the very same people who have been urging him to “act presidential” and launch an attack on the government in Damascus.


Welcome to Bizarro World, where up is down, left is right, and the biggest enemy of Trumpism is … Trump.


I’ve pinned a tweet to the top of my Twitter profile, one that you might take as a sort of journalistic credo, and it says simply this: “Where’s the evidence?” So what’s the evidence that the Syrian military, on the brink of victory against both the Islamist rebels and their allies in ISIS and al-Qaeda – and days away from a conference that was to have decided Syria’s fate – used sarin gas against a village in the Idlib region?


The only such evidence is coming from the Syrian rebels, radical Islamists who are ideologically indistinguishable from ISIS and who have committed endless atrocities in their battle to overthrow Assad. They claim that dozens of children, women, and other civilians are the victims of a deliberate attack by Syrian government forces.


In a court of law, the record of a witness is a crucial matter. If it can be proved that the witness has lied, the judge can and usually does tell the jury to disregard their testimony. In the case of Syria’s Islamist rebels, their record of serial fabrications speaks for itself. I wrote about this in detail in 2013:
“Those rollicking jihadists, the Syrian rebels, love a joke: although they can be deadly serious – such as when they’re eating the internal organs of their enemies – what they enjoy more than anything is a really good prank. There was the time they claimed the Assad regime was killing babies in incubators – not very original, but hey, it worked for the Kuwaitis! Then there was the ‘massacre’ at Houla, which was alleged to have killed 32 children and over 60 adults: a photo started appearing in the mainstream media, documenting the slaughter. The state-supported BBC was first to run with it – until it was discovered the supposedly incriminating photo was taken in Iraq during the recent war. The photographer was justifiably furious, the story was withdrawn, and the Syrian rebels went back to the drawing board.
The photo was supplied to the BBC by the rebels.


This record alone is enough to condemn them out of their own mouths, but here’s a list some of the other hoaxes they’ve tried to pull off:

1. In 2013, Islamist rebels claimed the Assad government had dropped chemical weapons on civilians in the city of Aleppo. It turned out to be tear gas or a similar substance used for riot control.
2. That same year, the rebels claimed Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons in the town of Ghouta, but this was debunked by UN war crimes official Carla del Ponte, who supervised the Hague investigation into crimes committed during the Kosovo war. Del Ponte said it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, who were responsible for the gas attack. Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh pointed his finger at the Turks and the rebel group known as al-Nusra as being behind what was a false flag attack.
3. When President Obama was about to authorize an attack on the Assad regime in response to the alleged poison gas attack on Ghouta, he was brought up short by DNI James Clapper, as Jeffrey Goldberg reported in The Atlantic:
   
   “Obama was also unsettled by a surprise visit early in the week from James Clapper, his director of national intelligence, who interrupted the President’s Daily Brief, the threat report Obama receives each morning from Clapper’s analysts, to make clear that the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas, while robust, was not a “slam dunk.” He chose the term carefully. Clapper, the chief of an intelligence community traumatized by its failures in the run-up to the Iraq War, was not going to overpromise, in the manner of the onetime CIA director George Tenet, who famously guaranteed George W. Bush a ‘slam dunk’ in Iraq.”
4. And don’t forget the case of “Syria Danny,” whose on-camera antics were exposed as he staged a Syrian army “attack” for the benefit of CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
5. Fake videos are a favorite ploy utilized by both sides in the Syrian civil war. Here’s a compilation, along with an account of how easily Western reporters were fooled.

Phil Giraldi, a former intelligence official, tells our very own Scott Horton that the “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a rebel storage facility containing some sort of chemical weapons. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” at the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of making a bad situation even worse.


Are we really going to war based on dubious “intelligence” like this? Remember the last time we did that?


The alleged chemical attack occurred in Idlib, where “al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Turkish-backed Salafi” are in control. These are the “rebels” whose word the Trump administration is taking as gospel – the same people who took down the World Trade Center and struck the Pentagon on 9/11.
What is going on here?


Let’s look at the larger picture. US intelligence agencies have been conducting a war of attrition against the Trump administration, leaking classified information compiled by Obama era officials and spearheading an investigation into alleged “Russian influence” on the 2016 election. These same spooks have been working with the Islamist rebels for years, alongside the Saudis and the Gulf emirates, in an effort to overthrow Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad. Trump’s past opposition to their efforts is undoubtedly a big factor in their campaign to discredit the President. Could Trump’s capitulation and sudden turnaround on this issue be an effort to “make a deal” with the intelligence community?


The Syrian attack also has domestic political value to Trump in that it shows him being “tough” on Russia. As the investigation into his alleged “collusion” with the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign proceeds, he’s no doubt hoping that some of the pressure may be taken off. In my view, it’s a vain hope – but he’ll learn that lesson soon enough.


There’s no such thing as “foreign policy” – it’s all about domestic politics. Leaders make decisions based not on the facts on the ground but on their calculation of how one course will redound to their benefit while the other course will hurt them on the home front. Trump, for all his claims that he’s “not a politician,” is acting just like they all do in this case.


But will this about-face on Syria really benefit him politically?


Millions of Americans voted for him because he promised to abjure “regime change” operations like the one that backfired so badly in Libya, not to mention Iraq. Indeed, it was Trump who stood before a group of Republicans in the South Carolina presidential debate and declared that the Bush administration had lied us into the Iraq war – and then proceeded to win that state’s primary handily, going on to get the nomination and win the election.


The paradox of Trump’s November victory is that he has provided anti-interventionists with the ammunition they need to shoot down his arguments for intervening in Syria. It’s only necessary to cite his many pronouncements on the subject, all of them inveighing against the “regime change” policies favored by Hillary Clinton and her supporters, and ask: what’s changed?


Trump’s base opposes meddling in Syria to oust the Assad government. They can be mobilized to oppose this new madness – and there are millions of them.

Trump has laid the basis for his own undoing. If he goes ahead and follows the advice of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, escalates the war on Assad, and saves the Syrian Islamists from defeat, his base will defect in droves. And they are already disaffected, what with the failure of the healthcare bill, the apparent demotion of chief Trumpian ideologist Steve Bannon, and the stalling of much of Trump’s agenda. Is starting another war in the Middle East supposed to be evidence that this is a President who “gets things done,” as the administration likes to boast? I don’t think so.


The danger is that what is being described as a “limited strike” will escalate into a much wider conflict. The Russians are on the ground in Syria: so are thousands of American soldiers, along with the Turks, the Iranians, the Israelis, and Hezbollah. Retaliation against American forces from either the Syrians, or the Russians – if Russians are killed or injured in the strikes – is entirely possible. We are on the brink of a regional explosion.


Now we’ll have to endure the cries of the War Party that Trump has “grown in office” and given up his “isolationist” views when faced with the “reality” of “American global leadership.” Lunatics like John McCain are calling for stopping the Syrian air force from flying, increasing sanctions on Russia, and even going to war with Russia – as McCain did, when he said “I don’t give a damn” when asked what happens if we kill Russian soldiers. “We will win a war with Russia,” said McCain, “because we’re superior.” This is certifiable craziness – but that’s the kind of world we live in now.


One more thing: the airfield that was bombed is said to be the site of Assad’s store of sarin gas. Yet you’ll remember that Syria was supposed to have surrendered the entirety of its chemical weapons, and this was certified by the United Nations, the Russians, and the Obama administration. So what chemical weapons are we talking about? Stay tuned for the next act in this drama, as demands for the inspection of this site are raised. What happens if – or when – the inspectors are let in and there’s nothing to be found?


NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard(Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

Read more by Justin Raimondo

1. Trump’s Base Revolts Against Syria Strike – April 9th, 2017
2. Boomerang: ‘Russia-gate’ Turns Into ‘Spy-gate’ – April 4th, 2017
3. Are We Headed for a Replay of World War I? – April 2nd, 2017
4. A Cyber-Gulf of Tonkin – March 30th, 2017
5. A Tale of Two Protests – March 28th, 2017

Comments from Benjaminis: Tomorrow the G7 meet and the Foreign Ministers of the 7 Countries will CHILL TOGETHER (SMILE) What a MESS ?

Trump’s Base Revolts Against Syria Strike

Democrats and neocons support him – Trump’s supporters, not so much
by Justin Raimondo, April 10, 2017



President Trump’s former enemies in the mainstream media, which he has characterized as purveyors of “fake news,” turned on a dime the moment he bombed Syria: the Establishment was thrilled that, suddenly, he was acting “presidential.” CNN, a particular target of the President’s ire, was gushing: NBC’s Brian Williams, in a bizarre turn of phrase, hailed the “beauty” of the bombing, which killed a number of civilians. Democratic party politicians, with few exceptions, stood at attention and saluted, while Trump’s Republican critics – notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham – praised the President while taking the opportunity to agitate for more extensive military action.


On the other hand, conservative media that has been supportive of Trump reviled the move: Breitbart readers weren’t happy, and neither were some of the writers. Ann Coulter was furious, and Laura Ingraham was hardly supportive. Michael Savage declared himself a “conservative peacenik,” Tucker Carlson was very skeptical, and on Twitter, the “Trump trolls” were trolling their former hero. British populist Nigel Farage, who led the Brexit referendum to victory, and who endorsed Trump, opinedthat Trump voters “will be scratching their heads” in bewilderment. Even over at National Review, a neocon redoubt, the voice of dissent was raised.


In short, Trump’s most vocal supporters were joining the ranks of the antiwar movement, a development the media noted with the same vitriolic disdain it had formerly reserved for Trump himself:

As Carlson noted in the video above, “on this topic the news has never been faker.” Politico ran a piece excoriating “Trump’s troll army,” in rebellion against their ostensible leader’s policy, as racists and conspiracy mongers; the New York Timesdenounced anti-interventionists as representative of “a “small but influential white nationalist movement” on the “far right,” while the Washington Post described them as holding “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist” views.”


“Like so much news today,” said Carlson, “this isn’t news but propaganda designed to smear and deceive rather than to inform. On this topic “the ‘news’ has never been faker.”


Fake – just like the media’s coverage of Trump himself. And now that Trump has ditched one of the pillars of Trumpism, those who took it seriously are being treated exactly like he was treated before – with a barrage of outright lies.


It serves the War Party’s agenda to frame a narrative that characterizes anti-interventionists on the right as “racists,” “conspiracy-mongers,” etc., but the reality was more accurately described by Daniel McCarthy in The National Interest:
“Before he gets more deeply involved in Syria’s civil war, Donald Trump will have to win one at home. The Republican Party was already divided after failing to repeal Obamacare. Now the conflict has spread to the White House, where Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner are at daggers drawn. Even Trump’s most loyal grassroots and media supporters are in an uproar over the president’s evolving foreign policy, which has taken a turn toward the establishment as his domestic agenda sinks into the swamp he promised to drain.


“How much damage has the Syrian attack done to Trump? He’s lost Ann Coulter, who took to Twitter to vent her outrage and retweet lesser-known supporters who felt equally betrayed. He’s lost Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com and the sizable blocs of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan activists who had flocked to Trump’s ‘America First’ banner….


“The president has lost his base, or is in grave danger of doing so. But he has also picked up new support: from John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Kristol, all of whom praised the airstrike on Syria. Neoconservatism is suddenly back in fashion at the White House, or so it seems.”


While I’m not sure how “losing” little old me is significant, McCarthy is entirely correct about the President’s activist base: they are defecting in droves. And while the Syria turnabout is bad news, especially for the Syrian people, there is a bright and shining silver lining.


The millions of voters who voted for Trump based, at least in part, on his “America First” foreign policy views had to experience – and embrace – what might be called “Trumpism” before they could be react in bewilderment and disgust as he turned on a dime. Trumpism, in this sense, was a bridge they had to cross before coming to a full understanding of just what “America First” means.

Trump’s many denunciations of our regime change policy in Syria, Libya, and throughout the world brought them halfway across that bridge – and his betrayal is bringing many thousands of them all the way over … to us.

This is what sectarians of all stripes refuse to understand. With their static one-dimensional view of how political change comes about, they simply see Them and Us – and never the twain shall meet. How, they asked during the presidential election campaign, can those Trumpian troglodytes possibly be opposed to our foreign policy of perpetual war?

What they didn’t get – and still don’t get – is that it took a catalytic figure like Trump to explode the phony left/right paradigm and imbue his supporters with some understanding of why the Empire exploits and impoverishes them. With this sudden reversal, the President is increasing their understanding of why this is so – because they aren’t going along with it.


And they aren’t going along with it because to even consider voting for Trump, while the media was hammering away at him and the Washington Establishment was sliming him as a dangerous “isolationist,” took a not inconsiderable independence of mind. Whether Trump was sincere in making his various anti-interventionist pronouncements, particularly when it came to the Syria issue, is beside the point: the point is that millions of voters took him at his word. The idea that his supporters were “fooled” by his rhetoric is similarly irrelevant. I, for one, foresaw that he would contradict himself while in office, as I wrote back in January of this year:
“That Trump is inconsistent, and an imperfect vessel, hardly needs to be said. That the danger of war still looms over us is also a fact that none can deny. Yet all this is irrelevant in the face of the conceptual victory his winning the White House represents. Here is a candidate who campaigned against GOP foreign policy orthodoxy, explicitly rejecting the legacy of the Iraq war and even going so far as to call out the Bush administration for lying us into that war….



“Yes, the Trump administration will take many actions that contradict the promise of their victory: that is already occurring. And we are covering that in these pages, without regard for partisan considerations: and yet it is necessary to step back and see the larger picture, looking past the journalistic details of the day-to-day news cycle. In short, it is necessary to take the long view and try to see what the ideological victory that was won this past November augurs for the future.”


Well, we’re living in that future right now: I have to admit it came a little sooner than I imagined, and a bit more abruptly than I thought possible. Yet that abruptness is a good thing: it dramatically underscores the contradiction between what Trump said and what he is now doing, and his most vocal supporters – particularly among the conservative opinion-making class – aren’t taking it lying down. They are in open revolt. Taking advantage of that revolt, encouraging it and highlighting the contradictions, is the task we have before us.


As I said in my January column cited above, we have to take the long view: that is, we have to understand that we’re building a movement. And the way to build that movement is not to stand aside and denounce those who are only halfway to understanding why the Empire is an albatross around our necks, but to patiently explain and let them learn why and how their leaders have betrayed them.

Betrayal is a painful experience: it is also a useful one. Physical pain is the body telling us that there’s something in the environment that must be avoided: psychic pain plays the same instructive role. As Trump’s supporters process what is undoubtedly a painful experience for them, they will realize how and why it happened – and with a little help from Antiwar.com, the best of them will come to understand how to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.


The post-Trump political landscape is far better for anti-interventionists than it was before the orange-haired real estate mogul came on the scene: there now exists a considerable faction within the GOP and its periphery that not only supports an anti-interventionist foreign policy but is also in open rebellion against the policies of the President they helped elect. They are sorely disappointed, but they are also angry – and energized. Because anger, after all – anger at injustice – is the primary motivating factor in politics, and never more so than at this moment in our history.



As I said in January:
“This isn’t about Trump, the politician, or the journalistic trivia of the moment: we are engaged in a battle of ideas – and, slowly but surely, we are winning.”
We are indeed winning, and the War Party knows it: that’s why Politico, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are doing their best to marginalize the emerging antiwar movement. They won’t succeed, but our victory won’t happen overnight. Nothing worth achieving ever does. As long as we take the long view, and adopt a movement-building perspective, the case for optimism is irrefutable.


NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.


I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).


You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard(Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

https://www.forexfactory.com/attachm...5&d=1491875954


Benjaminis - $70,616.16 US Dollars

The saying is great !!!

Good Day

Hope everyone is doing well.

Here are the charts

Hi KeepCalmFX

I was reflecting on today's price action from the start of the US Stock mkt open and following the correlations.
The dollar commodity pairs were week and the EURO & cable was strong on back of strong economic news I guess... Watching the correlations on the 5 min charts bonds, gold & stocks is music to my eyes ....lol

Roger_SK

Let us talk about CORRELATION. You and others here understand RISK OFF and RISK ON....

Here is the 5 minute chart from Finviz on the US 30 (DJIA - Dow 30)

http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=YM&p=m5

So.... this morning we had RISK OFF and you can see what US 30 did. So... SHORTING US 30 would have made you Money RISKING no more than 2% of your Capital of $50,000 US Dollars. You can also put on two more positions of 100 units of US 30 for a MAXIMUM EXPOSURE on our FIRST TRADE PLAN of going SHORT US 30.

That has to be clear and a GREAT TRADE PLAN and you do not need to look at any chart to do the trade.

Now back to CORRELATION with RISK OFF So.... look at the 5 minute chart from Finviz on USD/JPY.

YOU and everyone else can see the almost PERFECT CORRELATION. So... Our Trade Plan Number Three to SHORT one position of 100 units of USD/JPY only risking 2% of your Forex trading Capital of $50,000 US Dollars and you can still SCALE in two more positions of 100 units of USD/JPY for a MAXIMUM RISK of 6% on our Third Trade Plan.

Our Second Trade Plan only with RISK OFF as we had this morning is to SHORT SPX500.

Look at a 5 minute chart from Finviz on SPX500

http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=ES&p=m5

You can also see that it reversed so by ALWAYS LOCKING in MINIMUM PROFITS of $250 US Dollars you come out a WINNER.

You follow the MONEY FLOW while most on the EUR/USD thread and USD/JPY are having fun talking with each other.

NOTE: The comments that I just made about the EUR/USD thread and USD/JPY thread are NOT PERSONAL IN NATURE.
I have been reading the two threads and others on Forex Factory just to get a pulse on how the Retail Forex Traders are thinking and SADLY 95% are losing their money.

I still MISS Teek (SMILE) He is always welcome back anytime.

On Edit here is a typical post on the EUR/USD thread. You can see there is not much surety in that method of trading or the better description is Scalping.

Here is the post...

 

1. Post 1,103,325
2. Cleanup
3. Quote
4. Apr 11, 5:13pm (11 min ago)

1. https://cdn-assets.forexfactory.net/...ar438918_1.gif Don96
2. Joined Dec 2015 | Status: Member | 5,209 Posts | Invisible

Quoting Don96
{quote} going to be stop out by the looks, i jumped in later and got 3 pips worse... may try again at 54 for +10 but Yen will always be strong whilst war is on anyone's lips... {quote} problem with days like this, levels are so close, they can all trigger and i can have decent profit or any extension move can kill it... hit half +10 x2 and second half +22 but had -10 x4 totalling -4%, week -2% Month +10.6%.
line time, added in 4 extra ones in yellow in case of extension tomorrow. same all, Half on all for +10 and let the rest run into brown lines
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
https://www.forexfactory.com/attachm...1&d=1491945111
I am wrong

My RESULTS as everyone can see THANKS to my friend KeepCalmfx doing my SCREENSHOTS for me shows a PROFIT of $20,616.16 US Dollars in just 50 days of Forex Trading. I did not do any Forex Trades today since I was gone for most of the day.

As always please give me feedback and ask me any question or questions that come into your minds.

We hope to see KeepCalmfx back here on Wednesday and if you want to become a professional Forex trader just follow the example of KeepCalmfx as the results and knowledge that has been gained since December 27, 2016 is clear based solely on PERFORMANCE and Results.

I also want to point out that our Trade Plan Four to go LONG 100 ounces of Gold - MAXIMUM 3 positions had a good day with Gold UP OVER $20 US Dollars today.

Out Trade Plan Five to go LONG 5000 ounces of Silver - MAXIMUM 3 positions had a good day with SILVER UP OVER $ .40 cents an ounce.

Of Course our Trade Plan Number Six of SHORT EUR/USD or LONG EUR/USD is still on hold with NO TRADES on for the moment. Look at the Range of EUE/USD for today of 105.785 and 106.302 and you can see that it was not the BEST Currency Pair to trade either direction.

We also CAN NEVER have on more than 10 POSITIONS of any Trade Plan because our INSURANCE POLICY (RISK MANAGEMENT) does not permit more than $10,000 US Dollars utilized of the Capital of $50,000 US Dollars. That works out to 20% of your Trading Capital so if you are only trading with $25,000 US Dollars than you can only have $5000 US Dollars utilized.

So... IMAGINE a Retail Forex trader using $5000 US Dollars of trading capital if that and again you see sadly why they will ALWAYS end up giving their money to the SHARKS !!!


Benjamin

Am still assimilating your system and how to apply it and the trading station app. Mean while I did a couple of trades today by my own strategy . I didn't get any acknowledgment of your reception of my log in details that I emailed to you. Tomorrow hopefully I can improve MM and risk levels. Also added some more pairs as per my strategy. Hope you don't mind.

Why do you keep wanting to change the teaching program ? Learn how to trade properly then do whatever you want to do.

By trading your own pairs you defeat the whole purpose of the $50,000 US Funds Demo Account.

If KeepCalmfx took your approach then the results and learning would never have happened.

Just open up a second FXCM UK $50,000 US Funds Demo Account and trade whatever you want then see your results in 30 days.

How do I know what you are doing and why if you keep insisting on changing the teaching program ?

So PLEASE for the LAST TIME, outside of our teaching program you of course can do what you want however if you want KeepCalmfx and myself to help you and take our time and effort FOR FREE then you need to fit in.

As it is I am amazed at others that subscribe to this thread yet rarely seem to come by.

YES in some ways I am giving the "HOLY GRAIL" here and yet HUMANS seem to want to lose money or waste time or not learn how to trade Forex profitably.

Here EVERYONE .... NO DISRESPECT !!! Please Read This...

https://www.forexfactory.com/attachm...5&d=1491875954

After 14 years including 3 year of learning on $50,000 US Funds Demo Accounts and 11 years of real Forex trading with REAL FUNDS as you can see my personal results are over 20% a month Return on Investment and yet look how retail Forex traders react. The ONLY regular and accomplished Forex Trader here is KeepCalmfx.

I guess it must be TRUE !!! "Something FREE that is GIVEN willingly is not worth anything because Human Nature says HEY , It is FREE so it has NO VALUE and so it goes."

I guess if I was a Promoter, then I could say "Pay $2500 US Dollars and I will GUARANTEE you that you will make $250,000 US Dollars within one year" That is something that I will NEVER DO since that is NOT MY NATURE !!!

On Edit , I just read this post on the USD/JPY thread and I could not have said it better so here it is...

 

1. Post 65,113
2. Cleanup
3. Quote
4. Last Post: Apr 11, 5:41pm (13 min ago)

1. https://cdn-assets.forexfactory.net/...r442291_13.gif FXClarity
2. Joined Jan 2016 | Status: Member | 256 Posts

Respectfully, there seems to be an awful lot of guessing in here and very little in the way of structured, content rich analysis as to why anyone would enter a trade at these levels.

If you don't have a structured trading plan that has been rigorously tested outlining why you should enter, where you should enter, where your target is and how you will size the trade and where you may scale / cover the trade BEFORE you hit the "Buy" or "sell" - Don't even bother; because you are bullett fodder.

Either develop a structured trading plan or save your time and money because this business is not for those acting on a whim.


Have a nice day !!!


Benjaminis

https://larouchepac.com/20170411/bri...20Global%20War


The British Claim Credit For Trump's Disastrous Mistake—The Empire Must Be Destroyed, Now, To Prevent Global War
April 11, 2017
https://larouchepac.com/sites/defaul...?itok=ltpXozdm
British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson Photo: BackBoris2012 Campaign Team CC-SA





https://larouchepac.com/modules/file...cation-pdf.png 20170411-british-own-trump-mistake.pdf

The British are taking full credit for the U.S. criminal attack on Syria last week; for "persuading" President Trump to turn against Assad and the Russians; and for deploying US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow on behalf of the British Empire to tell the Putin Administration it must get out of Syria or face war. This last claim — that Tillerson is London's puppet in his visit to Russia Tuesday and Wednesday — is not at all certain, and may be a total lie, but there is no end to British officials and British press whores (including those in the U.S.) trying to dictate to Tillerson that he must fill that role.


In fact, the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Italy, which concluded today, was a set back for the British scheme. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson demanded new sanctions against Russia, claiming they were complicit in the supposed Syrian chemical weapons attack. But both the European and Japanese representatives rejected this outright, demanding instead that a UN investigation must first determine the facts surrounding the chemical weapons incident. The British fallback is that they will provoke another fake incident in Syria and dupe Trump again into another military blunder.


Meanwhile, both President Putin and the Russian Defense Ministry reported today that the terrorists in Syria are now moving chemical weapons into four critical locations, to "forge another pretext for accusing the Syrian Government of using chemical weapons and triggering new US airstrike." The Defense Ministry "warned against such inadmissible steps." Putin said that this is a rerun of 2003, when the Bush Administration claimed the Iraq government had chemical and nuclear weapons, in order to justify an attack, "which ended with the destruction of the country, an increased terrorist threat and the emergence of ISIS on the international scene — no more, no less."


"The British Empire has been the enemy of mankind for a long time," Lyndon LaRouche said today in response to the British campaign. "Shut down the British System! The US is a NATION — always has been a nation, despite some troubles, so we must not submit. We can do it — organize with OUR instruments to shut this down. We're Americans! Don't give in. Nations in Asia are involved, some people in Europe. They have RIGHTS — these bastards have no rights."


He added: "The people of the world, we represent them. Not everyone agrees with that, but we have the authority to determine what the relationship among peoples must be. Policies like these must be cancelled, and people who perform them must be punished. Do that, and we win. Anything else, we lose. Shut them down, the Brits in particular."

Audio titled lyndon-larouche-denounces-british-as-liars

Numerous American patriots are warning that the madness coming out of the Trump Administration this past week totally contradicts everything that Trump had been committed to throughout his campaign, from "no more world policeman," to being friends with Russia, and to being President of the US, not the world. What they miss, in nearly all cases, is the open, public role of the British and their assets in the U.S..


One blatant example: The Guardian in London, openly threatened Syria with the "Libya treatment," claiming that Tillerson would "offer the Putin regime a bald choice, between cutting Bashar al-Assad loose... or continuing to back him, and risking a Libyan-style outcome." They add: "The Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was violently deposed and killed in 2011 by rebels, lent air support by NATO powers, including the UK." This British sewer did not bother to mention that Libya, a prosperous and relatively peaceful nation until the British and their Saudi cohorts armed Wahabbi terrorists to provoke a civil war, with Obama's blessing, has now become a terrorist Hell, at the center of the millions of people driven out of their homes as refugees across the region.


It is of note, however, that Tillerson pointed to that Libyan disaster on Sunday as the reason the the US (if Tillerson is in fact speaking for the government) will not force a regime change upon Syria. His meetings in Moscow Wednesday will be crucial in determining the direction of this dangerous process.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) issued a Memorandum to President Trump today which begins: "We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia — with the risk of escalation to nuclear war," signed by 24 former leading intelligence officers from U.S. government and military intelligence institutions. VIPS, set up in January 2003 by intelligence officers who saw that then President Bush was being lied to about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, write: "Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us... there was no Syrian 'chemical weapons attack,'" but that the Russians and Syrians are telling the truth that a terrorist chemical weapons facility, believed to be a traditional weapons depot, was bombed, causing the disaster. They call on Trump to call on Tillerson to set up an immediate summit with Putin, to "prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair."
LaRouche concluded that we are witnessing "treason against the US from the inside, using forces inside the government to destroy that government.

No British institution has the right to meddle in American affairs. Obama is an example of this evil. Mankind has to learn to fight, to shut down things that are wrong.

The British Empire is wrong — with some good people hiding under their skirts. People must have the guts to do what must be done. The time has come to crush this thing. Get this nation and other nations to agree to that."

Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Lead
Leaflets


Comments from Benjaminis: Tillerson is in Russia now and meets with Foreign Minister of Russia on Wednesday and maybe Putin. We have independent background here from credible people. I know some of them personally because they have Canadian offices in Montreal and I have personal contact with the Canadian group.

IMPORTANT ANALYSIS - MISH - FRENCH ELECTIONS

https://mishtalk.com/2017/04/11/two-...ns/#more-45274


Two Critical Factors in French Election: Sureness and Abstentions


11 Tuesday Apr 2017
Posted by Mish | April 11, 2017 7:19:05 | Economics




The most recent French election polls remain very tight. Four candidates have a genuine shot at making it to the final round.


The first round vote is on April 23. Yet, a huge percentage of voters still have not made up their minds who to vote for.

Another 32% to 37% plan on sitting the election out or purposely spoiling their ballot.

4.5 Percentage Points Separate Macron, Fillon, Mélenchon
https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=529&h=152
Round One Confidence
How confident should Le Pen and Macron be regarding round one? Take a guess before reading further.

https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=529&h=194
Support for Le Pen is relatively solid. So is support for Fillon. Hamon, Mélenchon, and Macron have issues.

33% of Macron’s alleged base may not even vote for him!

If Mélenchon can manage to hold his base while capturing support for Macron, we could see something virtually no one but me has even discussed: Le Pen vs Mélenchon in round two.


Which Way Are Undecideds Likely to Break?


To ascertain who voters are likely to switch to, assuming they switch, let’s investigate round two intent.
https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=529&h=329
Macron is the clear winner in second round intent, but results vary widely.

Those intending to vote for Hamon are highly likely to support Macron in round two, assuming, of course, Macron does make it to round two. However, Hamon is only polling 8.5% now as his base has largely abandoned him already.


Despite the fact that the positions of Le Pen and Mélenchon are very similar, Le Pen presumably would pick up very little support from Mélenchon while a whopping 40% would choose to sit the election out in protest.


This looks like a lukewarm hold your nose vote for Macron.

If Fillon is knocked out of round one, his support would be much more evenly split, but Macron still rates better than Le Pen.

Does Any of This Make Much Sense?
On the surface, not much.


Le Pen and Mélenchon both eject EU institutions, free trade, and NATO. Both are in favor closer ties with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.


Fillon is pro-Europe as is Macron and Hamon. But Le Pen, who is vehemently anti-Europe, rates to pick up 31% of Fillon’s vote if he is knocked out, assuming you believe the polls.


Neither Le Pen nor Mélenchon is likely to get their anti-Euro legislation passed in French parliament and that assessment may help both of them at the expense of Macron.


Le Pen vs Macron
Here’s another chart to ponder.
https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=529&h=254
Given round two intentions stated above, this should have been a massive landslide Macron. But it isn’t.


The above chart is yet another sign of doubt about Macron.

Macron better not make any serious blunders in the final 12 days of round one campaigning.

Also consider French Candidate Mélenchon Launches “Fiscal Kombat”: Free Video Game on Sharing Wealth.

Those wishing to play the game can do so at FiscalKombat.Fr.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock

http://traderfeed.blogspot.ca/2017/0...ose-money.html

Saturday, April 08, 2017
The Real Reason Traders Lose Money
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JwOf5xRRL...ersonality.jpg
So I've figured out the real reason traders lose money. It's only taken me how many years as a psychologist to figure this out, but, hey, no one ever said psychologists have a monopoly on the insight market.

Before launching into the actual reason traders lose money, let's step back and review an important principle: Most accepted wisdom in the trading world consists of kernels of wisdom that have been blown up into Grand Ideas that are utterly invalid.

The poster child for this phenomenon is the idea of discipline. Successful trading requires having rules that guide decisions and actions. Success requires the consist following of those rules. Given a set of valid rules, the better performer will be the disciplined person who trades with fidelity to those rules. Makes sense.

But once we blow discipline into a Grand Idea and insist that Discipline is the source of all trading success, we then have mentors and coaches who harangue traders with journals and checklists to monitor every minute activity. This ultimately serves two purposes: it makes traders so self conscious that they are no longer attuned to market patterns, and it so routinizes trading that traders become unable to adapt to changing market conditions. As a general principle, discipline makes sense. As a supposed formula for trading success, Discipline ensures consistency in losing.

The same is true for ideas of emotional awareness and mindfulness in trading. Great ideas in context that, once blown into Great Principles, divert traders from the real work for identifying objective patterns playing out in the marketplace. If a trader trades randomness with self awareness, they will be a keen observer of their own demise.


Which brings us to the topic at hand: the real reason traders lose money.

One of those nuggets of wisdom that gets blown out of proportion is the idea that success comes from trading in a way that fits your personality. There is certainly truth to that. If you're an extroverted person, your idea generation is likely to benefit from talking with knowledgeable market participants. If you're introverted, you are more likely to benefit from reflection and analysis. Taken to the level of Grand Principle, however, the idea that success will follow from expressing your personality in markets becomes a kind of anything goes, do whatever you feel like justification for poor decision making.

Because *that* is the real reason traders lose money: They ARE trading their personalities. Show me a losing trader and I'll show you someone acting out their personality in risk-taking. Consider examples drawn from the "big five" personality traits:

* The trader who lacks conscientiousness in his/her personal life fails to achieve consistency in trading. The trader who is overly conscientious fails to innovate when market conditions change.

* The trader who lacks emotional stability in his/her life trades impulsively and emotionally. The trader who is highly emotionally stable has difficulty taking proper risk out of fear of upsetting the emotional apple cart.

* The trader who is highly introverted or extroverted allows internal or external stimuli to interfere with decision making.

* The trader who is highly open to experience becomes so enamored of new ideas that his/her trading becomes skewed by the latest shiny toy. The trader lacking openness to experience finds one way to make money and can't do anything else even after that one way loses its edge.

* The trader who is very likeable has difficulty tuning out people and becomes easily distracted by noise. The trader who lacks likeability alienates the very colleagues that could help inform his or her trading.

In other words, traders lose money BECAUSE they are trading their personalities. Every personality trait brings potential assets and liabilities to trading. Sometimes, our personalities pose severe challenges to trading success. Every personality asset, when over utilized, brings its own set of problems.




There is only one source of making money in markets, and that is identifying recurring patterns in market behavior and exploiting those in a manner that provides solid reward relative to risk. We marshal and attenuate various personality traits to identify and exploit those patterns. Success comes, not from indulging our personalities, but from knowing which traits to draw upon and which to work around. That is called wisdom.


In my next post, I'll provide a personal example of trading success that came, not from following my personality, but from properly channeling it.

Further Reading: Trading Psychology for the Experienced Trader
.

http://traderfeed.blogspot.ca/2016/0...perienced.html

Saturday, July 16, 2016
Trading Psychology for the Experienced Trader
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cEKCKNkcQ.../SmoothSea.jpg
A problem with much of the theory and practice of trading psychology is that it is grounded on the experience (and issues) of retail traders and relative newcomers to markets. I suppose that's inevitable, as a sizable proportion of writers and practitioners have not actively traded themselves and many have not routinely worked with trading and investment professionals. A result of this limitation is that much of trading psychology focuses on such issues as controlling one's emotions and following a defined process. Those are important issues to be sure. But limiting trading psychology to those is like limiting the coaching of baseball to holding a bat properly and getting in front of ground balls before fielding them. Great stuff for the noobs, but not exactly what the experienced, successful folks are working on.

Here are a few areas of trading psychology that I find to be of much more relevance to traders well along their developmental paths:

1) The cognitive side of trading - How do you process information most efficiently/effectively and how can you refine your market preparation to better leverage your information processing strengths?

2) The epistemological side of trading - How can you most effectively integrate quantitative data on markets (predictive models) with an experienced feel for markets? How can you best blend analysis and intuition?

3) The tactical and strategic sides of trading - How can you quickly identify when markets are changing and adapt to those changes? How can you stay true to how you trade without becoming so inflexible that you become a dinosaur when markets evolve?

4) The personal side of trading - How can you best manage your personal life and maximize your experience outside of trading so that you are best able to maximize your focus and energy while you are trading?

In my book, I refer to an ABCD focus:

* Adapt to changing markets
* Build on cognitive and personality strengths
* Cultivate creativity
* Develop best practices and processes from your successful experience

I find that difficult periods of trading offer the greatest opportunities to work on these areas. Most of the time, trading is difficult because we have not sustained that ABCD focus. Somewhere in the cognitive, epistemological, tactical/strategic, and personal sides of trading, we're not making the most of our strengths. That becomes our path for development. The expert sailor has learned from stormy seas: skill development is one of the most powerful paths to psychological development.

Further Reading: The Single Most Important Trait of Successful Traders
.
Posted by
Brett Steenbarger, Ph.D.

Saturday, September 05, 2015
The Single Most Important Trait of Successful Traders
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--ZgnOMDVJ_...chology2.0.jpg
Great to see that the new book will be coming out on the 28th of this month. I titled it Trading Psychology 2.0, because I wanted to update the standard version of trading psychology, which I find increasingly limited.

Traditional trading psychology has begun with an important set of premises: Human beings process information emotionally and often non-rationally in the face of risk, reward, and uncertainty. These information processing biases lead to poor trading decisions. The natural conclusion that follows from these assumptions is that successful trading requires emotional control, self-discipline, and adherence to a grounded process.

I don't dispute the above at all. My problem is that, over the years, I have met with a number of very emotionally controlled, disciplined, and process-focused traders who have not been able to make money. Mastering cognitive biases is necessary for success in markets, but I found it's not sufficient.

What I'm calling the 2.0 version of trading psychology begins with a different set of premises: markets are ever-changing, such that patterns and relationships that yield profits in one time period (regime) may be spectacularly unsuccessful in another. A good example from recent financial history has been the impact of quantitative easing on the trading of stocks. QE resulted in a crushing of volatility in stocks and a transfer of flows from lower-yielding bonds to stocks that possess both yield and the prospect of higher returns. When the end of QE and possibility of interest rate normalization comes to the fore (think taper tantrum and the recent prospect of a Fed hike), stocks have traded with far greater volatility and risk-off bias.

What has made recent trading challenging is that the stock market is not behaving in anything like the way it behaved for much of the past two years. We see higher volatility and strong selling flows. For all intents and purposes, the trader who trades stocks now and in the first half of 2015 might as well be trading different asset classes.

As long-time readers are aware, I build non-linear regression models of short-term returns in SPX. Typically these models predict returns over a 3-5 day horizon. The recent model I built covers market periods displaying a medium level of volatility; the prior model covered market periods with low volatility. The variables in the models are entirely different, and they have different predictive power. One important difference is that short-term strength and weakness is more likely to reverse in the higher vol regime; more likely to show near-term continuation in the low vol, QE period.

Now if a trader starts with the traditional set of assumptions and strictly adheres to a particular process, that trader will get torched when markets change from choppy, low volatility range movement to high volatility decline. If discipline is defined as sticking to a particular set of rules and practices, then discipline eventually sows the seeds for a failure of adaptation. The trader who used to make consistent money and now cannot succeed has not suddenly morphed into an emotional basket case or a massively biased thinker. Rather, that trader has failed to adapt to a changing set of market conditions. It is often a trader's virtues--consistency and discipline--and not vices that create losses during periods of market flux.

This is why the single most important trait of traders who achieve career success is adaptability. Adaptability does require discipline and self-control, but importantly it also requires self-awareness, market awareness, creativity, and flexibility. Companies continued to churn out personal computers when laptops gained traction. Companies continued to emphasize laptops when tablets became popular. There will be companies pushing tablets when wearable computing devices become the rage. All of those companies had fine processes and disciplined execution. They simply failed to adapt to changing markets.

Do stocks trade with higher or lower correlation to one another? Is that correlation waxing or waning? Are we trading with higher or lower volume and volatility? Is volume and volatility waxing or waning? Do we show evidence of trending/momentum or reversal on short time frames? Longer time frames? Do we see signs of weakening breadth or strengthening breadth as we make successive price highs or lows? Which sectors of the market are leading performance? Lagging? Is leadership stable or changing? How are stocks correlated with other asset classes? Is that correlation changing recently? What do those cross-asset correlations and patterns of leadership tell us about the U.S. economy? The global economy? How are we responding to economic data releases and market movements overseas? Is that pattern of response changing? What are those patterns of response telling us?

When you ask those questions, you take the first step toward developing meta-processes: processes for adapting your best practices to changing market conditions. Trading is *not* like poker, chess, or athletics: the rules in typical games of skill do not change from one competition to another. Trading is like business. The business marketplace never stays still. Success is not about finding a magic formula and slavishly adhering to it. It's about staying flexible and finding new formulas under evolving conditions. The faster the pace of change, the more creativity becomes the essence of discipline.

I thought the original message was for one to show you that he can make a gain of at least 10% in a month , get to learn your approach within the same period and get funded after the period. So now I would like to be get the idea clear maybe others who subscribe but don't show up can get enlightened more on this matter and get more involved or otherwise.

Good morning, Benjaminis
Thank you for the reply and the insight. I have a question wrt the money flow / risk. Is it important to follow the opening and closing from session to session. Will it have an impact or affect the Asian to NY session for example. Other than the effect of major news and geopolitical events on prevailing sentiment will the close of one session have an affect on the next session or influence the next sessions trading?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...clear-conflict

The Price Of Gold Spikes As Investors Get Spooked By Talk Of World War III And Nuclear Conflict
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/w...icons/user.gif By Michael Snyder, on April 11th, 2017



http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/w...in-460x307.jpgWhenever the world starts going crazy, investors instinctively begin flocking to precious metals. So it wasn’t exactly a surprise when gold and silver prices started to move upward aggressively as global leaders continued to talk about the possibility of World War III and nuclear conflict. The price of gold spiked to a five month high on Tuesday, and as I write this article gold is currently sitting at $1277.10 an ounce. Right now silver is at $18.35 an ounce, and many analysts believe that it is poised for a dramatic jump in the weeks and months to come as global tensions continue to rise. Google searches for the phrase “going to war” are the highest that they have been at any point in recent years, and many people out there are starting to understand that the U.S. could soon be facing military conflicts in Syria and in North Korea simultaneously.

In response to persistent threats from the Trump administration, the North Koreans are promising that they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they are attacked by the U.S. military.

In particular, an article that was just published in North Korea’s official state newspaper says that U.S bases “in South Korea and the Pacific operation theater but also in the U.S. mainland“ would be targeted.

Most analysts do not believe that North Korea has any missiles that can reach the U.S. mainland, so that is probably an empty threat, but they can definitely hit Seoul, Tokyo and all U.S. military bases in South Korea and Japan.

And even if the U.S. was able to locate and take out all North Korean nukes in an overwhelming first strike, the North Koreans would still have thousands of artillery guns and rockets aimed at Seoul. Military analysts in the western world have estimated that North Korea could fire off up to half a million rounds within one hour of being attacked, and the devastation that such a barrage would cause in Seoul would be beyond anything that we have ever seen in the modern world.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that it is going to be nearly impossible to conduct a conventional military assault on North Korea that does not result in an absolutely catastrophic death toll.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump appears determined to do something anyway. A couple of days ago we learned that he “has ordered his military advisers to be ready with a list of options to smash North Korea’s nuclear threat”, and on Tuesday he told the world that the U.S would “solve the problem” whether China helps or not…
Trump, who has urged China to do more to rein in its impoverished ally and neighbor, said in a tweet that North Korea was “looking for trouble” and the United States would “solve the problem” with or without Beijing’s help.

Just like he did with Syria, Trump’s words have now committed us to taking military action in North Korea.

Let us hope that any military action is delayed for as long as possible, but it is definitely alarming that Trump boasted to the Fox Business Network about the “very powerful” naval armada that is sailing toward North Korea right now…

“We are sending an armada. Very powerful,” Trump told Fox Business Network. “We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you.”

Meanwhile, it is being reported that the Chinese have deployed 150,000 troops to their border with North Korea as they continue to warn both sides against taking military action.

Over in the Middle East, things continue to get even more tense as well.

Russia and Iran have pledged to “respond with force” to any additional U.S. attacks, but the Trump administration is not showing any signs of backing down. In fact, White House press secretary Sean Spicer has substantially lowered the threshold for more military conflict by suggesting that the use of “barrel bombs” may be enough to justify another attack. Considering the fact that everyone in the Syrian civil war has been regularly using barrel bombs for many years and that approximately 13,000 were used in 2016 alone, it is very alarming for Spicer to say such a thing.

On Tuesday, Trump told the American people that “we’re not going into Syria”, but what happens if he orders another missile strike and the Russians and Iranians respond by shooting down some U.S. aircraft or by sinking an entire aircraft carrier?

I can guarantee you that members of Congress from both parties will be absolutely screaming for war if CNN starts endlessly playing footage of a U.S. aircraft carrier sinking after it has been struck by the Russians or by the Iranians.

We are so close to World War III erupting in the Middle East, and there was no need for the U.S. to get involved in the first place. According to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, evidence continues to mount that Assad had absolutely nothing to do with the chemical attack that Trump got so upset about…
Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and director of the Council for the National Interest, stated on the Scott Horton show that “military and intelligence personnel” in the Middle East, who are “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, call the allegation that Assad or Russia carried out the attack a “sham.”

Giraldi said the intelligence confirms the Russian account, “which is that they [attacking aircraft] hit a warehouse where al-Qaeda rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties.” Moreover, Giraldi noted, “Assad had no motive for doing this.”


Investors that can see the writing on the wall are already getting out of stocks and into precious metals while there is still time to do so.

Because if we get into a direct military conflict with Russia and Iran in Syria, global financial markets will crash and gold and silver will soar into the stratosphere.
And of course a similar scenario would play out if we attack North Korea and the North Koreans respond by firing off nuclear or chemical warheads at targets in South Korea and Japan.

I did not expect that we would be on the verge of World War III less than three months into the Trump administration, but here we are.
These are perilous times, and those that are wise are moving their money and are making key preparations before things spiral completely out of control.

Dear Surgefx

I am not sure why I have failed in making things clear to you. Your assumptions are 100% incorrect. The whole point of my method of Forex teaching is to see if the trader has the proper DISCIPLINE and the DESIRE to do things completely different from the way that they have been doing their Forex trading.

There is only one way that this works and it is the reason for my success. So... if you want to do this the way that it needs to be done that is fine. However if you want to do it your way than there is no way that I can help you or anyone else for that matter. As for other subscribers the reason that they have for not being active has nothing to do with our subject here.

Have a great day.


Benjaminis

The markets can and usually do by the second especially in these times of great confusion and conflict in the world. See my first post that I did today for a more detailed explanation.

The RISK ON and RISK OFF is always what we need to know 24 hours a day.

Your question is excellent and my answer is expanded now by the MONEY FLOW.

MONEY FLOW occurs when the Equity Markets first open in Asia each NEW DAY. Then we move on to Europe and finally to the North American markets at 9:30 AM in the USA and Canada. The most active MONEY FLOW times are when Europe and North America are open at the same time. I do not usually trade the markets when Asia is the only market that is open because the MONEY FLOW through the VOLUME is light and plus NEW FACTS come out on Data Releases starting in Europe between the 2:00 AM open in Frankfurt followed by the opening of the Equity Markets at 3:00 AM and news comes out right up to 6:00 AM. When I say NEWS, I mean scheduled Data Releases.

The ones from North America starts at 8:30 AM and then is followed by Option Forex Expiry at 10:00 AM along with other Data Releases.

Of course the MONEY FLOW then lessens once Europe is gone at 11:30 AM and then when the North American Equity Markets CLOSE at 4:00 PM we then start a new cycle.

At any time we can go from RISK ON to RISK OFF as we saw about one week ago when Syria was bombed. The reactions are immediate and the results start to show up as each of the Equity Markets in Asia , Europe and North America OPEN and the MONEY FLOW STARTS AGAIN.

You will NOTICE if the North American Equity Markets have a BIG SELL OFF as in (RISK OFF) then this usually rotates to Asia and then to Europe.

I hope that my reply makes it clear for you and everyone else that reads and participates in the thread.

I thank you very much for your question as you can see that this leads to comprehensive answers which allows US all to learn and it helps me to really FOCUS in on the proper answers.


Benjaminis

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.co...nker-in-chief/

Donald J. Trump: The Empire's Spanker-In-Chief

By David Stockman. Posted On Monday, April 10th, 2017

The Donald's missile "attack" on Syria's al-Shairat air base is surely the most impetuous, thoughtless, reckless and stupid act from the Oval Office that we can remember---and that covers 50 years at least. And we put "attack" in quotes because it's now evident that virtually every one of those $1.4 million per copy Tomahawks amounted to a big fat nothing-burger.

To wit, 36 of the 59 missile were duds and landed somewhere that was not the al-Shairat air base, including a nearby village where apparently a number of civilians were killed. The 23 that did hit the base actually missed the main runway, which, by the way, was back in operation launching Syrian air force sorties within 24 hours. None of Assad's operational warplanes were hit, either----just a handful of old MIG-23s that have apparently long been languishing in the base's "repair" boneyard.
Yes, the Donald's sharpshooters did annihilate several glorified Butler buildings, otherwise referred to as "hangars", and a few fuel tanks---the better for some post-attack fireworks to be posted to the War Channels (CNN, MSNBC and Fox).

But what the Tomahawks surely did not hit was the chemical weapons storage facilities alleged by the Pentagon to be at the base. With Washington's satellites monitoring al-Shairat like a cloud of bumble bees, there was not a whit of evidence of Syrian personnel running around with gas masks after the missiles hit.
Had there been, the War Channels would have been playing it in an endless loop all weekend. Naturally, the Pentagon says these apparently non-existent stores weren't even targeted owing to humanitarian (?) reasons.

Right, copy that!

Worse, launching this feckless attack in the midst of sharing Caesar salad with the leader of China was surely an amateur ploy right out of the pages of The Apprentice. That's because within 24 hours of Xi Jinping's departure from what will now be known as War-A-Lago, the Syrian air force had not only resumed launches from the base, but was actually bombing the very site of the original offense at Khan Sheikhoun!

Upon hearing the news, China's supreme leader would have presumably browned his Changshan (traditional tunic) in the fear of it----save for the fact that he is the reincarnation of Mao Tse-tung in a business suit, and just as ruthless.

That gets us, of course, to the purpose of attacking any sovereign government that has not attacked or threatened America; and, most especially, one waging a determined fight against the one threat to America's peace of mind, if not actual physical security, extant on the planet today.

That is, the radical jihadist head-choppers of ISIS, and particularly the al-Nusra terrorists desperately holed up in their last redoubt in Idlib province. Even if Assad had used chemical weapons---and there is zero proof he did---what possible purpose was there in a pinprick attack on Assad's military capability that was hailed by jihadists all over Syria and the greater Middle East?

Does the Donald really wish to attack both sides in the most tangled, bloody, sectarian and convoluted civil war in modern history----a course of action he has long, and rightly, criticized.

Did he really reverse in a mere two days, the anti- "regime change" line he had held for years? And one he had wielded to great effect with a "don't do it" tweet storm in August 2013 in the wake of what now is clear had been a false flag chemical attack staged by radical jihadists at Ghouta designed to lure Obama into attacking the regime?

The weekend talk show huffing and puffing by Secretary Tillerson and the ignorant little nincompoop he appointed as UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, would leave you to guess, but not really. At the time of the attack Thursday evening, Administration spokesmen made it clear that the attack was "punishment" for Assad's violation of international norms about the fair way to kill civilians when waging urban warfare.

You see, dropping white phosphorous, which is a second cousin of sarin gas, as Washington did on Fallujah is apparently OK. The same goes for drone attacks and percussion bombs on civilian targets, as Washington has been doing throughout the better part of the Middle East for much of the last two decades.

But this was different. Why, according to the self-appointed tribunes of the moral high ground at the editorial pages of the New York Times, Assad's attack on Khan Sheikh0un was so heinous that it cried out for punishment.

So then and there, Donald J. Trump appointed himself the Empire's Spanker-in-Chief, and thereby destroyed what remained of his stillborn Presidency. Indeed, it will be all downhill from here because the Deep Steep now most assuredly has the Donald by his stubby.


Still, the fact that Donald Trump has now made himself a laughingstock by putting what amounted to a wimpy birch-switch to Bashar's behind, does raise a crucial question. If Trump is to be praised---as the mainstream media did incessantly since Thursday night---for stepping up as Spanker-in-Chief, why stop with Assad?

How about his recent visitor to the Oval Office, General Sisi of Egypt? The latter has put thousands of his political enemies to death or in jail or through unspeakable torture. But rather than getting the birch switch, Sisi got a ringing endorsement from the Donald for his regime of terror and assurance that Washington's $1.5 billion annual stipend to the Egyptian military would be his for the duration.


Then again, why was the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman grinning like a Cheshire cat after his Oval Office meeting with the Donald. He should have been grimacing in agony after several hundred Saudi-style lashes for conducting what amounts to a genocidal campaign against the civilian population of Yemen.

So far there have been more than 10,ooo civilian casualties----including 4,000 dead men, women and children who were at the receiving end of Saudi bombs and missiles. And some of the latter were Textron-supplied "percussion" bombs which upon impact leave behind hundreds of unexploded bomblets disguised as brightly-colored balls, toys and trinkets.

Needless to say, they do not include a warning label in Arabic or otherwise saying "keep out of the reach of children". The proof of that is dozens of dead and maimed children who picked up the "toys" supplied by the war criminal pictured below (left side of the photo).

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc...g?v=1489545196
The worst part of the Donald's spanking campaign, of course, is that the White House has not offered one iota of proof that Assad did it. Nor has it even attempted to refute the exceedingly plausible Russian-Syrian claim that the regime's bombing raid in the heart of Nusra Front's last remaining occupied territory hit a weapons depot where the jihadists were storing not only conventional ammo, but possibly manufacturing projectiles stuffed with chemical agents, too.

Do ya think that the Donald could have kept his birch switch in the drawer for at least a few days so that an impartial international inspection team could have examined the site and the victims?

In fact, retired DIA Colonel Patrick Lang gave us a roadmap to what may actually have happened based on his own sources in the intelligence community. In the past his credibility has been excellent, and his story makes far more sense than the White House's. That is, on the verge of victory over the jihadists and only days after the Trump Administration threw in the towel on regime change, Assad committed an act of complete insanity:
Donald Trump’s decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

So given that very plausible alternative possibility, why not at least have an Adlai Stevenson moment? That's when President Kennedy's UN Ambassador stood before the entire world and showed dramatic reconnaissance photos proving the Soviets had indeed placed intermediate range missile batteries in Cuba.

By contrast, the Deep State's octopus of secrecy today hides behind the pathetic excuse that it must protect its "sources and methods" at all hazards. Therefore it can only "assess" and "judge" out loud that the bad guys actually did it. Meanwhile, the Congress, the American public and the rest of the world should take their word for it that the intelligence community (IC) has the hard evidence.

Well, FU, IC.


For crying out loud, the entire world---and most especially the Russians, Assad regime and assorted other purported malefactors---knows that the skies of the planet are swarming with US intelligence satellites. And that NSA's digital blood funnel, to borrow Matt Taibbi's felicitous description of Goldman Sachs in another context, has penetrated every nod, switching center and backdoor of the entire global communications grid.


So exactly nothing is being protected by Washington's refusal to stump up the SIGINT (signals intelligence) proof if they've got it.

That's exactly what didn't happen, of course, back in August 2013 when the jihadists pulled a similar false flag to lure Obama into a similar attack. At the time, the White House released a four-page, evidence-free paper pinning the blame squarely on Assad in what it called a “government assessment” because even the IC would not vouch for it.


Needless to say, not a shred of SIGINT was ever released to prove the White House contentions----save for an obvious leak a few days after the event to the ever complaint New York Times. The latter's rewrite of their leaked White House talking points claimed that an assessment of the chemical rocket's trajectory found at the site proved the sarin-carrying missiles were fired from deep in government controlled territory more than 12 kilometers away.

As it happened, an international arms control expert and leading MIT scientist in the field, teamed up shortly thereafter to prove from the primitive rockets examined by international inspectors after the attack that they could have had a trajectory of no more than 2 kilometers. That is, they were fired from the heart of jihadist controlled territory in the very villages where the horrific sarin gas attack occurred.


As Philippe Lemonoine summarized in a recent post, the evidence has only gotten even more unequivocal since then:
Back in 2013, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (IICISAR) and the former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, told the BBC that “what appears to our investigations [is] that [chemical weapons were] used by the opponents, by the rebels and we have no indication at all that … the authorities of the Syrian government have used chemical weapons”. To be sure, she indicated that she was only talking about their preliminary findings and, when the IICISAR published its report a month later, it didn’t assign responsibility to anyone. Del Ponte reiterated her claims after the report was published in another interview to Euronews and said that she didn’t regret making them.


There is still more to cast doubt on the hypothesis that Assad was behind the attack in Ghouta. Seymour Hersh, a famous investigative journalist who, among other thing, broke the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal, argued in two detailed articles published a few months after the attack that Turkey provided sarin to Syrian rebels. According to him, the Turkish government wanted them to carry out a false flag attack using chemical weapons in Syria, which Erdogan hoped would force the US to intervene against the regime. Indeed, as I already noted above, Obama had declared the use of chemical weapons a red line that Syria could not cross under any circumstances. Hersh’s claims were later supported by the allegations made in December 2015 by Turkish members of Parliament, who claimed that, back in 2013, several people had been arrested with chemicals in the South of Turkey a few weeks before the attack in Ghouta. According to them, the prosecutor’s office had wiretapped conversations proving that they were making sarin, but this was almost completely ignored in the Western media.


But far be it for the mainstream media to remember back that far. Indeed, the cable channels and the beltway politicians were all in war heat the entire weekend at the sight and sound of Imperial Washington literally pounding sand in the Syrian desert.


And right up front were not merely the usual suspects like Senator McWar (R-AZ) and Little Marco (R-FL) busy ranting about the "war criminals" in Damascus and Moscow, but also the ever so thoughtful (by his lights) Fareed Zakaria pronouncing within minutes of the attack that "tonight Donald Trump became president".


Yes, that's what the man said. The entire Imperial City has become so sick with war fever that an illegal, unconstitutional act of rash stupidity can be proclaimed an exercise in high statesmanship.

Needless to say, the Donald will never shake himself loose of this tar-bay. He has the US now in harm's way in the thick of an inferno crawling with Assad's allies including the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah fighters, as well as his enemies scattered among pockets and crevices of an artificial nation created by European imperial diplomats in 1916 and utterly destroyed by Imperial Washington a century later.


The "enemies", of course, include the remnants of the Islamic State in the dusty rubble-strewn towns of the Upper Euphrates and the pockets of the northeast such as Idlib province controlled by the equally horrid jihadists of Nusra front and the various rebranded affiliates which operate with it.

As to the latter, the Donald may have actually helped revive what amounts to a Taliban in the Levant in the name of protecting Syria's women and children.
Here is what one of America's most distinguished scholars has to say about the Nusra front and their White Helmet auxiliaries who now rule the roost in Idlib. The latter flood the world with fake news on the social media, of course, about how they are being victimized by the duly elected leader of Syria---even as they would "Khadafy" him in a heartbeat if they had the half the chance:
To judge how incompetent the rebels have been in providing a viable or attractive alternative to Assad, one need merely consider the situation in the province of Idlib, where the rebels rule. Schools have been segregated, women forced to wear veils, and posters of Osama bin Laden hung on the walls. Government offices were looted, and a more effective government has yet to take shape. With the Talibanization of Idlib, the 100-plus Christian families of the city fled. The few Druze villages that remained have been forced to denounce their religion and embrace Islam; some of their shrines have been blown up. No religious minorities remain in rebel-held Syria, in Idlib, or elsewhere. Rebels argue that Assad’s bombing has ensured their failure and made radicalization unavoidable. But such excuses can go only so far to explain the terrible state of rebel Syria or its excesses. We have witnessed the identical evolution in too many other Arab countries to pin it solely on Assad, despite his culpability for the disaster that has engulfed his country."


Needless to say, we have no brief for Bashar al-Assad. He and his family have ruled Syria for 40 years harshly and more often than not by the sword. Their regime has been based on secular principles and a coalition of minorities including Christians, Druse, Kurds, Yazidis and their own minority Alawite (Shiite) tribe. The alternative is a Sunni-jihadist led reign of ethnic cleansing and an extension of the murderous caliphate hanging on by a thread in Raqqa and Mosul.


Yet in getting out the birch switch against Assad without even remotely proving the case, the Donald has ended up siding with the incipient Taliban occupiers of Syria's northeast.


He needs to be careful. It's only a few short steps to this.

https://4threvolutionarywar.files.wo...rii1.jpg?w=470




http://ads.agorafinancial.com/www/de...&cb=30d15f48bd

Copyright 2017 Subsidium LLC. All Rights Reserved.

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMIN: In the name of Humanity , I ask everyone of you reading this post to think very carefully about what you have read. We just may be at the crossroads of our world and our lives. Examine what your beliefs and your views are and understand that we live in a sick evil world and the proof of that is what has happened in front of our eyes since November 8, 2016.

155 days ago and now today here is where the World has arrived. Where will we be on May 1, 2017 only 18 days away ? Only G-D knows.

Heaven help us all.....