Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

"Sell Economic Ignorance, Buy Gold"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 2, 2017 9:00 PM



"We live in an age of advanced monetary surrealism...." is how Incrementum's Ronald-Peter Stoeferle and Mark J. Valek begin their latest epic tome on the precious metals market "In Gold We Trust."


In Q1 2017 alone, the largest central banks created the equivalent of almost USD 1,000 bn. worth of central bank money ex nihilo. Naturally the fresh currency was not used to fund philanthropic projects but to purchase financial securities1. Although this ongoing liquidity supernova has temporarily created an uneasy calm in financial markets, we are strongly convinced that the real costs of this monetary madness will reveal themselves down the line.


We believe that the monetary tsunami created in the past years, consisting of a flood of central bank money and new debt, has created a dangerous illusion: the illusion of a carefree present at the expense of a fragile future. The frivolity displayed by many investors is for example reflected by record-low volatility in equities, which have acquired the nimbus of being without alternative, and is also highlighted by the minimal spreads on corporate and government bonds. Almost a decade of zero and negative interest rates has atomised any form of risk aversion.


In the past years, rate cuts and other monetary stimuli have affected mainly asset price inflation. Last year, we wrote: “Sooner or later, the reflation measures will take hold, and asset price inflation will spill over into consumer prices. Given that consumer price inflation cannot be fine-tuned by the central banks at their discretion, a prolonged cycle of price inflation may now be looming ahead.” 2016 might have been the year when price inflation turned the corner. However, the hopes of an economic upswing due to Trumponomics and the strong US dollar have caused inflation pressure to decrease for the time being.

Upcoming recession fears resulting in a U-turn by the Fed, and the consequential depreciation of the US dollar would probably finalise the entry into a new age of inflation. This will be the moment in which gold will begin to shine again.


The following chart shows the similarities between the 1970s and the status quo. The analysis reveals the fact that the bear market since 2011 has been following largely the same structure and depth as the mid-cycle correction from 1974 to 1976. However, we can see that the duration of both corrections diverges significantly.


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...02_gold2_0.jpg
Not only the absolute, but also the relative development is important for a comprehensive assessment of the status quo of the gold market. Along with gold, silver, and mining shares, industrial metals such as zinc, nickel, copper and energy commodities (especially coal and oil) marked stellar performances last year. All of this happened in an environment where the US dollar climbed to a 14-year high. We regard this as a remarkable development and as a prime example of a bull market, whose starting gun has not been heard yet by the majority of investors.

"Sell economic ignorance; buy gold." - Tim Price
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...02_gold1_0.jpg
We consider a bullish stock market currently as the most significant opportunity cost for gold. Therefore, a clear break-out of the gold price should only be occurring amid a stagnating or weaker equity market. If we now compare the gold price performance with the development of equity prices, we can see that the relative weakness of gold seems to be slowly coming to an end. Last year we had already noticed that the intensity of the upward trend had declined significantly. After almost five years of underperformance relative to the broad equity market, the tables might slowly be turning now in favour of gold.

In a historical context, the relative valuation of commodities to equities seems extremely low. In relation to the S&P500, the GSCI commodity index is currently trading at the lowest level in 50 years. Also, the ratio sits significantly below the long-term median of 4.1. Following the notion of mean reversion, we should be seeing attractive investment opportunities.
* * *
Key topics and takeaways of the full report include:

1. High expectations of Trump's growth policy dampened the gold price increase in 2016 – Still up 8.5% in 2016 and 10.2% since Jan. 2017
2. The further development of the normalization of monetary policy in the US will be the litmus test for the US economy.
3. Bitcoin: Digital gold or fool's gold?
4. White, Gray and Black Swans and their consequences for the gold price
5. Exclusive Interview with Dr. Judy Shelton (Economic advisor to Donald Trump) about a possible remonetisation of gold
6. 5 Reasons why the gold bull market will continue

Full Incrementum report below (note the complete 170-page version is available here)

Hello my good friend "redoktober

You have nothing to apologize for. After 73 years plus of life experience I have learned that when someone says something about you so in this case, me (Benjaminis) they are describing themselves, "redoktober"

First of all whether there are 11 people or 1100 people it has not bearing on anything as I have been developing my website material with the excellent help of KeepCalmfx who started of as a student and now has become a Forex teacher based on results posted on this thread.

I work with Forex professionals in the industry, "MTV" not being one of them.

So if you get bored posting garbage maybe I can help you with your problems. Until then please come back and post whenever the urge comes upon you. In your HONOR, I will continue to post on my thread daily until June 25, 2017 which would have been my father's 102ND Birthday. Then you will need to pay me $50 US Dollars a month in order to spam me. However if you decide to subscribe to my thread like the other 26 who have already done that then you get a LIFETIME FREE PASS...

So... if I keep teaching for 10 more years then you get a value of $6000 US Dollars. (10 Years Times $600 US Dollars)


Benjaminis

PLEASE GO WITH THE MONEY FLOW

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: Let us review what we teach and why it works if YOU WORK.

Without your WORK then you are just wasting your time and probably your money.

There is no such thing as Political Correctness here because we are here to teach and share our knowledge ALL FOR FREE until May 31, 2017 and then if you have subscribed to this thread before May 31, 2017, then you will get a FREE LIFETIME PASS to our company website.

SO.... going back to our winning FORMULA for FOREX SUCCESS.

20% of the SUCCESS is yourself the Forex Trader.

20% of the SUCCESS is your EDGE which we teach you and that is Money Flow Trading.

20% of the SUCCESS is control of your RISK (Your hard earned money) Our UNIQUE RISK MANAGEMENT allows you to trade without worry, fear and greed. Of course we want to make sure that you have the right qualities to be a winning Forex Trader so our course is for a period of three months, so we can teach you the right trading methods and we can see your results and make adjustments without your FEAR OF LOSS of Real Money.


20% of the SUCCESS is using and understanding the USE of Technical Indicators which include not only the common ones. It includes the understanding of Supply and Demand. Support and Resistance and the use of Pivot Points which you can see each day on our daily charts that cover ALL our Trade Plans which we also help you develop and explain WHY. These are our Winning Trade Plans that we review every three months or earlier if circumstances in the markets require that.

20% of the SUCCESS is the FUNDAMENTALS, which are much more than Data Releases each day around the world. It includes reports and articles extremely well researched as you can clearly see from this article that explains why the TREND in the Equity Markets especially in North America is DOWN. By understanding the difference between PERCEPTIONS (MARKETS) and REALITY, you then have a good handle on REALITY before the MASSES do and you are not surprised when events eventually unfold.

In order to be able to help you better it is VERY IMPORTANT that you share your thoughts and your QUESTIONS here on our thread.


Benjaminis



HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND...


Benjaminis

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Central Banks Now Own A Third Of The Entire $54 Trillion Global Bond Market
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 4, 2017 9:51 AM



Two weeks ago we asked a question: maybe behind all the rhetoric and constant (ab)use of sophisticated terms like "gamma", "vega", CTAs, risk-parity, vol-neutral, central bank vol-suppression, (inverse) VIX ETFs and so forth to explain why despite the surging political uncertainty in recent years, and especially since the US election...
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ertainty_0.jpg
... global equity volatility, both implied and realized, has tumbled to record lows, sliding below levels not even seen before the 2008 financial crisis, there was a far simpler reason for the plunge in vol: trading was slowly grinding to a halt.


That's what Goldman Sachs found when looking at 13F filings in Q1, when it emerged that the gross portfolio turnover of hedge funds had retreated to a record low of just 28%. In other words, few if any of the "smart money" was actually trading in size.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...2%202017_0.jpg
Over the weekend, JPM confirmed as much observing that, among other things, it was the retrenchment of active managers, who are being crowded out by central bank QE in the bond space and a shift towards ETFs in the equity space, that acts as long-term depressant of market volatility.

As the bank notes, since the Lehman crisis, the propensity to change positions or trade has declined as active managers have been crowded out by central bank QE, coupled with FX reserve managers’ and commercial banks’ purchases of bonds, all of which are crowding out active bond managers. This crowding out is illustrated in Figure 10 by the ownership of the $54tr universe of tradable bonds globally. 50% of this universe is owned by banks, central banks or commercial banks both of which are rather passive owners of bonds.

While the point is critical, what we would like to highlight in the chart below is the staggering amount of debt instruments owned by central banks: as of the latest data, central banks own just over a third of the global tradable bond universe of $54 trillion, or roughly $18 trillion. How this amount of debt on bank balance sheets is ever unwound, i.e. sold - even with central banks' best intentions - without crashing the bond market, we don't know.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0CBs%201_0.jpg
And then there are ETFs, which have done to hedge fund equity holdings what central banks have done to fixed income crowding out: as JPM notes, "a secular shift away from active equity managers, mutual funds and hedge funds, towards passive equity mutual funds and ETFs. As we discussed before, this secular shift since the financial crisis of 2008 is driven by the inability of active equity managers to outperform established and well-known equity benchmarks such as the S&P500 index. Figure 11 shows this dramatic shift away from active equity funds towards passive equity funds in the US since 2008."

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0CBs%202_0.jpg
JPM highlights that this crowding out of active managers, both bond and equity managers, has been reducing trading activity since the Lehman crisis. This is shown in Figure 12 by the trading turnover of DM equities and US government bonds, both of which have been declining secularly over the past eight years.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...Bs%203_1_0.jpg
And this brings market liquidity, and volatility, into the discussion. The secular decline in trading turnover has been accompanied by a reduction in market liquidity and, in particular, market depth. In turn, reduced market liquidity and market depth is further discouraging active managers to trade or change positions as the transaction costs hurdle increases. And this reduced propensity to trade or change positions suppresses the average level of market volatility over the long run.

Which while perhaps acceptable in the long run, is a major risk in the short term, as reduced market liquidity can act as an amplifier of market volatility if a shock or surprise forces many investors to change their positions all at the same time. So market liquidity acts as a double-edged sword for market liquidity, and ironically the less liquidity, the less trading, which leads to even less liquidity and so on, until - at least in a "thought experimental" world - just one trade gets to "readjust" (in lieu of a more disturbing verb) the entire market.

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: What this really means, Ladies and Gentleman is that the Central Banks are supporting their own House of Cards. What we have here are HARD FACTS not FALSE PERCEPTIONS. You can be sure this was discussed by the Bilderberg Group on the weekend in Washington. They know what they are doing and why and we almost know the same as they know, however what WE do not know is when they will PULL THE PLUG or probably more likely, what BLACK SWAN EVENT will pull the PLUG for them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Putin Tells Stone: "Snowden Is Not A Traitor"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 3, 2017 9:20 PM


Just hours after Megyn Kelly announced on NBC’s Today show that she would be interviewing Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg tomorrow at the International Economic Forum, Showtime released the first trailer and extended clip for The Putin Interviews, a sit-down with the Russian president conducted by the film-maker Oliver Stone for a four-part special that premieres on 12 June.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0603_putin.jpg
In the extended clip released on Thursday, The Guardian reports Stone and Putin can be seen driving in a car with an English translator in the backseat, discussing topics such as Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing and Russian intelligence.




“As an ex-KGB agent, you must have hated what Snowden did with every fiber of your being,” Stone asks in the clip.

“Snowden is not a traitor,” Putin replies. “He did not betray the interests of his country. Nor did he transfer any information to any other country which would have been pernicious to his own country or to his own people. The only thing Snowden does, he does publicly.”

Even though Putin condemned the NSA's spy operation, he told Stone that Snowden shouldn't have leaked the documents they way he did.

"If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further," Putin said in a clip of the interview released Saturday.

Stone, whose 2016 film Snowden detailed the rise and fall of the whistleblower, goes on to ask Putin about his own intelligence activities, and though the clip features no overt references to rumors of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, Stone can be seen asking Putin about hacking in the special’s official 30-second trailer.



“I think they’re working quite well,” Putin says of Russian intelligence. “Our intelligence services always conform to the law. That’s the first thing. And secondly, trying to spy on our allies if you really consider them allies and not vassals is just indecent. Because it undermines trust. And it means that in the end, it deals damage to your own national security.”

Stone recently took to Facebook to express his views on Trump and Putin. This film comes against a frightening background wherein the US is sleepwalking into a situation where it becomes more and more likely that Russia will react. Which is precisely what so many angry American neocons and Hillary-wing Democrats seem to want! Why? Is it really worth it to push the world closer to the nuclear precipice for this anger? Is it Trump they hate or is it truly the Russians? And why have they conflated these 2 issues?

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2...r/#more-151850

For some time now, China and Saudi Arabia have been negotiating to ditch the petrodollar system and allow Beijing to purchase oil with the Chinese yuan. If a deal is struck, it will be a huge blow to the long-standing system of the petrodollar, which dictates that oil is sold in units of U.S. dollars. Should it begin to dissolve, it could spell the end of U.S. dollar hegemony — leaving Americans with an increasingly devalued currency, and robbing them of their spending power.


Here’s how China’s deal-brokering in the oil market could gradually kill the dollar, and what average savers ought to know about maintaining their savings in spite of it.


Rise of the Petroyuan?
The petrodollar has reigned supreme as the world’s default oil trading currency since 1974, when the U.S. made an agreement with Saudi Arabia that crude sales to all countries would be made in dollars, thereby supporting USD value. But now, China is bringing that deal into question.


This comes at an awful time for the dollar, once the world’s undisputed, number one reserve currency, but which has recently taken severe hits to that status. Now, at the ever-growing number of signs of weakness in the dollar, China is fully seizing on an opportunity to fully dethrone the greenback and position the yuan in its place.


Things started to really heat up back in June 2015, when Russia’s third largest oil producer, Gazprom, announced it would settle all crude sales with China in yuan, thus dropping the dollar entirely from those transactions.

Keep in mind, Russia is the world’s top oil-producing nation. So that move alone was a major hit to the dollar.

Today, China is taking the next big step: restructuring its trade relationship with Saudi Arabia — the world’s second largest oil-producing nation — to do the same thing it did with Russia.


But why is China doing all this now? The dollar’s vulnerability isn’t necessarily the only reason.

China is now the world’s largest consumer of imported crude, surpassing the U.S. for the first time in 2017. The chart below from Bloomberg tells the whole story…
http://www.birchgold.com/wp-content/...-pic-china.png
Now that China is the world’s leading consumer of oil, Beijing can exert some real leverage over Saudi Arabia to pay for crude in yuan. This is what’s motivating Chinese officials to make a full-fledged effort to renegotiate their trade deal now.


So China has serious incentive to topple the petrodollar, but what power do Chinese officials have to make that happen?

As it turns out, quite a bit… mainly because of the foothold China already has with its 2015 deal in Russia.

That’s a key point, because it allows China to reduce its imports from countries who won’t trade crude for yuan (like Saudi Arabia), while favoring Russian imports instead.


And that’s exactly what China’s been doing.

By slowly constricting its imports from Saudi Arabia and falling back on Russian imports, Chinese officials are sending a clear message to the Saudis: Trade with us in yuan, or we’ll take our business elsewhere.


You know the old saying: “The customer is always right.”

Well, China is the world’s biggest customer when it comes to oil. And with their existing agreement in Russia, Chinese officials have Saudi Arabia over an oil barrel.

Ultimately, that could be what makes this deal happen – and really damages the dollar.


Oil-Fueled Dollar Demise
The dollar’s strength rests on two pillars:
1) Its historically prominent use for trade in the oil market.
2) Its position as an international reserve currency.


As we said before, the dollar has already lost significant ground as an international reserve currency, so one of those pillars is partially crumbled.


With China posturing to destroy the petrodollar, the second pillar could start cracking as well.


Eventually, precious little will remain to keep the dollar propped up. When that time comes, anyone holding dollars in their savings could be in for a painful reality check.


How to Rescue Your Dollars
The wheels for a serious dollar crisis are already in motion, and China’s efforts to tear apart the petrodollar will only set them spinning faster.


This issue won’t just go away, and it could be responsible for the biggest loss of wealth among regular savers in our lifetime.


However, there is a way you can “rescue” your dollars: allocate a portion of your savings into physical precious metals.


Remember, by the laws of basic economics, physical gold will always rise in price when the USD falls — for the simple reason that it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of metals when the dollar takes a dive.


The value of precious metals is fixed; it’s only the price of metals denominated in a currency that fluctuates. So the purchase price of metals is largely dictated by the valuation of whatever currency is being used to buy them.

If you don’t own gold yet, or if your current allocation is lacking, this news shows today could be a very wise time to start or increase your position.

Birch Gold Group helps Americans protect their savings with physical gold and silver. Clients can purchase precious metals for physical possession, or move their IRA or 401(k) into a Precious Metals IRA. To learn more, request a free Info Kit on Gold – there is zero cost and zero obligation to you. All you need to do is enter your details at www.birchgold.com

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Hedge Fund CIO: "Normally The Fed Would End This Bubble, But It Can't This Time For One Reason"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 4, 2017 12:35 PM



In his latest weekend notes, One River Asset Management CIO, Eric Peters, picks up where BofA's Mike Hartnett left off on Friday when he said that the "QE Monster" will only end when "the Wall Street bubble" finally shocks the Fed. Yes, but what will "end it", or better yet, what will "shock" Yellen and company out of their complacency?


To this, Peters' response is that the Fed finds itself in a big "quandary" not so much due to the S&P500, and overall asset levels, which even Yellen now admits "pose risks to financial stability" as per the latest FOMC Minutes, but due to China:
“The real credit excesses haven’t been created here, they’ve formed in China, which leaves the Fed in a quandary.” Much as the Fed would like to have jurisdiction over every corner of global finance, they no longer control China.


He's right: with rates on various Chinese debt instruments surging in recent months, as Beijing cracks down on shadow banking, any further tightening by the Fed may or may not impact the momentum-chasers that have sent Amazon above $1,000, but it will certainly have a dramatic impact on China's cost of funding, which in turn would unleash the next deflationary shockwave around the globe, sending global rates tumbling once again as the reflationary, rate hike frenzy fizzles, and forces the Fed to promptly cut rates back to zero (if not negative).


Here is the quick and dirty from Eric Peters:


Quandary

“Classic late-cycle action,” said the CIO. “Vol-compression, loosening financial conditions, and a pain-trade that tilts forever higher,” he continued. “Normally the Fed ends it. Hiking aggressively, flattening the curve, widening credit spreads, and then the economy rolls.”

But this cycle is not quite like the others.

“The real credit excesses haven’t been created here, they’ve formed in China, which leaves the Fed in a quandary.”

Much as the Fed would like to have jurisdiction over every corner of global finance, they no longer control China.

“By closing the capital account, the Chinese once again have complete dominion over their domestic credit machine,” continued the same CIO. “When they were actively opening up the capital account, China relinquished control over their interest rates to the Fed.” The volatility of Jan/Feb 2016 was one of many consequences; a lesson not soon forgotten.

Now that the Chinese have retaken control, economic volatility is more likely to come from within. “The warning sign for real problems will be a material decline in house price appreciation.”


Or, as we explained in March, "Why The Fate Of The World Economy Is In The Hands Of China's Housing Bubble"

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...20income_0.jpg

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: By understanding all of these very complicated issues at least there will be no surprises once the SHIT HITS THE FAN and every sign is showing that something MAJOR is about to happen. The Week of June 4, 2017 to Friday June 9, 2017 has many major GEOPOLITICAL and FINANCIAL EVENTS....

We have to be aware and watch events unfold and be ready to act as we understand what is causing the MONEY FLOW and Asset Classes to change in value. We may get some hints after 8:00 PM (New York Time) once the Asian markets open and of course near 2:00 AM (New York Time) when Frankfurt opens it's trading.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Realism Is The New Pessimism (Or Why 4% GDP Targets Are Ludicrous)
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 4, 2017 1:01 PM



Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,
The American core population (aged 15-64) is the greatest economic consumptive force on earth. They make up 2/3rds of the total US population and 95% of US employment. When considering growth, particularly the all important annual growth in Gross Domestic Product, the growth of this population should be the first consideration (although it is strangely nowhere in typical economists or Federal Reserve accounting). From a growth perspective, it doesn't matter if this population is 3.25 million or 325 million...all that matters is how many more there are than the year before. Some will point to wage growth but this is essentially equally offset by rising prices. It is the growth in this population that drives the need for new housing, new infrastructure, and generally adds millions of new consumers every year (aka, demand growth)...until now.


The core US population growth has been slowing since '00 and as of this year (drum roll please) that growth is ending. To be clear, this wasn't "supposed" to happen. Not according to the Census or all those planning on perpetual growth. But as the chart below highlights (yoy change on a monthly basis), for the first time since WWII (and perhaps in US history) the core US population has ceased growing...and is likely to begin declining in the coming months and years. FYI - The spikes of '90, '00, '10, and more since are due to Census adjustments, not sudden population changes. Further downgrades should be expected as Census estimates for growth remain overly optimistic.



A combination of factors are driving this cessation of core growth including decades of negative birth rates (even among the recent immigrants), the graduation of the boomers to the 65+ population, and little to no net illegal immigration since '08 (now combined with political and enforcement factors further turning net immigration to significant levels of net emigration). This all adds up to a fast decelerating basis for US consumption growth...and out the window with it, the notion that superior immigration driven US demographics will save America.


Yes, the total US population is still expected to grow this year by 2.2 million, at a total level more in-line with that seen in the 1980's (when the US population was 2/3rds it's current size). However, even that 2.2 million number is likely to be significantly downgraded due to the factors above...perhaps downgraded by as much as 50%...such is the impact of net negative illegal immigration?!?

Some real world correlations may be found in plotting housing starts vs. the annual change in core population...below. The current divergence of rising housing starts for a core population no longer growing should be setting off alarm bells.


And vehicle sales vs. change in core population...below. Selling massive quantities of debt fueled vehicles for a core population no longer growing...what could go wrong?


If this trend persists, all net US population growth is now solely among the 65+yr/old population living a decade+ longer than the previous generation. From a GDP growth perspective, the impact of a declining 0-64yr/old population (the big population that drives economic activity) only offset by a much smaller but growing 65+yr/old population (that is leaving the work force, credit averse, and moving to fixed incomes) should be pretty straight forward. Simply put, the basis for GDP growth (among other things) is in deep shit!


The chart below detailing US population growth among the demographic segments versus annual GDP. The last column on the right is a death knell for growth in a world already awash in overcapacity and debt.

And as for GDP, it is now simply a reflection of new federal debt. The chart below shows annual GDP growth minus the annual growth in federal debt...and since '08, there is no growth but the growth in un-repayable federal spending...and it's going to get much worse. Full details HERE.



And for those who struggle to understand the impact of the core population, the chart below highlights the substitution of federal debt since the core growth began decelerating. And what level of federal debt creation (and CB asset purchasing) will need happen as the core ceases growing or outright declining? Well, I guess we're all about to find out how you make fewer people consume more stuff (or at least how you make the numbers appear so) and simultaneously avoid asset bubbles from imploding.

Of course, none of this is reflected in the "markets" as the chart below highlights. The Wilshire 5000 (blue line representing all publicly traded US equities) has blasted $10 trillion higher than the acknowledged "bubbles" of '01 and '08. Talk of further interest rate hikes, the Fed reducing its balance sheet, and true economic growth is simply a most vexing discussion in the face of a likely declining consumer base!?!


I attempt to pull together the growth of flood of M3 "money" HERE and decelerating population vs. consumption HERE. Lastly, I try to outline who is buying the Treasury bonds HERE and likewise how the stock market is levitating HERE.

And as always, there will be those who suggest it will be global growth that is lifting all boats...again, bullshit...as outlined and detailed HERE, HERE, HERE, and especially HERE and HERE.

The current system of infinite growth on a finite planet is up against some very hard stops...and how much longer the papering over of widening chasms can be maintained is unknowable (as is which assets may survive the great fall and the subsequent reset). The only thing I know for sure is the fall is imminent, the heights from which we will begin our descent are dizzying, but it's unsure what will arrest our fall into depopulation, deflation, and depression. Realism is the new pessimism.

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: You can clearly see by the articles posted this Sunday the DIFFERENCE between FALSE PERCEPTIONS and MISINFORMATION as compared to REAL FUNDAMENTALS.

Then we add to REAL FUNDAMENTALS our other FUNDAMENTAL which clearly is what actually changes all the values of what we trade and that of course is the MONEY FLOW.

The Forex Markets along with the Commodity Markets and Equity Markets and Bond Markets over the last 45 days have been extremely difficult to trade HOWEVER using Good Trading Plans combined with CORRELATION in most cases along with Risk Management will always keep you around to trade.

As always I ask for input so I know what you understand or perhaps do not understand.

Soon the Forex Trading begins and I am ready for all possibilities and my BIAS CAN STAY NEUTRAL while waiting for the MONEY FLOW to start.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THIS POST AS THEY WILL SURELY DO SOMETHING THIS WEEK AND HERE IS A COPY OF THE POST !!!

 

1. Post 3,661
2. Cleanup
3. Quote
4. Jun 1, 2017 7:38pm

1. BenjaminIs
2. | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 2,893 Posts | Online Now

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

The Bilderberg 2017 Agenda: "The Trump Administration - A Progress Report"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 1, 2017 5:41 PM



Every year, the world's richest and most powerful business executives, bankers, media heads and politicians sit down in some luxurious and heavily guarded venue, and discuss how to shape the world in a way that maximizes profits for all involved, while perpetuating a status quo that has been highly beneficial for a select few, even if it means the ongoing destruction of the middle class. We are talking, of course, about the annual, and always secretive, Bilderberg meeting.


And just like last year's meeting in Dresden, the primary topic on the agenda of this year's 65th Bilderberg Meeting which starts today and ends on Sunday, is one: Donald Trump.


Ironically, this year "the storm around Donald Trump" as the SCMP puts it, is not half way around the world, but just a few miles west of the White House, in a conference centre in Chantilly, Virginia, where the embattled president will be getting his end-of-term grades from the people whose opinion actually matters: some 130 participating "Bilderbergs".


The secretive three-day summit of the political and economic elite kicks off Thursday in heavily guarded seclusion at the Westfields Marriot, a luxury hotel a short distance from the Oval Office.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...main01_r_0.jpg
As of Wednesday, the hotel was already on lockdown and an army of landscapers have been busy planting fir trees around the perimeter, to try protect "coy billionaires and bashful bank bosses" from prying lenses and/or projectiles. Perched ominously at the top of the conference agenda this year are these words: “The Trump Administration: A progress report”.


So is the president going to be put in detention for tweeting in class? Held back a year? Or told to empty his locker and leave? If ever there’s a place where a president could hear the words “you’re fired!”, it’s Bilderberg.


Sarcasm aside, the White House was taking no chances, sending along some big hitters from Team Trump to defend their boss: national security adviser, HR McMaster; the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross; and Trump’s new strategist, Chris Liddell (curiously, neither Gary Cohn nor Steven Mnuchin will be there although the controversial new Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, Jose Barroso will be present). Could Trump himself show up to receive his report card in person: we are confident he will tweet all about it... which is probably why he will never be invited.


Stil, none other than Henry Kissinger, the gravel-throated kingpin of Bilderberg, visited the White House a few weeks ago to discuss “Russia and other things”, and certainly, the Bilderberg conference would be the perfect opportunity for the most powerful man in the world to discuss important global issues with Trump.

Sarcasm aside, what are among the "Trump agenda" items to be discussed? The publicly list is as follows:

 

1. The Trump Administration: A progress report
2. Trans-Atlantic relations: options and scenarios
3. The Trans-Atlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks
4. The direction of the EU
5. Can globalisation be slowed down?
6. Jobs, income and unrealised expectations
7. The war on information
8. Why is populism growing?
9. Russia in the international order
10. The Near East
11. Nuclear proliferation
12. China
13. Current events

The US president’s extraordinary chiding of NATO leaders in Brussels is sure to be first and foremost on the Bilderberg discussing panel.

The Bilderbergers have summoned the head of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, to give feedback. Stoltenberg will be leading the snappily titled session on “The Transatlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks”. He’ll be joined by the Dutch minister of defence and a clutch of senior European politicians and party leaders, all hoping to reset the traumatised transatlantic relationship after Trump’s galumphing visit.


As the Guardian puts it, the guest list for this year’s conference is a veritable “covfefe” of big-hitters from geopolitics, from the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, to the king of Holland, but perhaps the most significant name on the list is Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the US.


According to the meeting’s agenda, “China” will also be discussed at a summit attended by Cui, the US commerce secretary, the US national security adviser, two US senators, the governor of Virginia, two former CIA chiefs and any number of giant US investors in China, including the heads of the financial services firms the Carlyle Group and KKR. And for good reason: as last night's PMI numbers showed, the Chinese economy - the global growth dynamo - is finally contracting. If China goes, the rest of the world will follow.


Additionally, the boss of Google Eric Schmidt, who warned in January that Trump’s administration will do “evil things”, is expected to attend, too. The executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s holding company, has just come back from a trip to Beijing, where he was overseeing Google AI’s latest game of Go against humans. He declared it “a pleasure to be back in China, a country that I admire a great deal”. It’s possible three days spent chatting to the Chinese ambassador could even be good for business.

Several journalists are participating in this year’s forum, including London Evening Standard editor George Osborne and Cansu Camlibel, the Washington bureau chief for Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper. But per convention, news outlets are not invited to cover the event.


“There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written,” the group stated. “Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”


Ex-deputy secretary of state William Burns and former deputy assistant secretary of defence Elaine Bunn, both Obama-era officials, will also attend. Burns, the current president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has warned that Trump “risks hollowing out the ideas, initiative and institutions on which US leadership and international order rest.”


With one of the agenda items titled simply enough "can globalisation be slowed down?" it is no surprise that anti-globalisation protesters have already descended on the location of the meeting.


* * *
Below is a full list of this year's participants:
CHAIRMAN

1. Castries, Henri de (FRA), Former Chairman and CEO, AXA; President of Institut Montaigne

PARTICIPANTS

1. Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG
2. Adonis, Andrew (GBR), Chair, National Infrastructure Commission
3. Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group
4. Akyol, Mustafa (TUR), Senior Visiting Fellow, Freedom Project at Wellesley College
5. Alstadheim, Kjetil B. (NOR), Political Editor, Dagens Næringsliv
6. Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
7. Arnaut, José Luis (PRT), Managing Partner, CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut
8. Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
9. Bäte, Oliver (DEU), CEO, Allianz SE
10. Baumann, Werner (DEU), Chairman, Bayer AG
11. Baverez, Nicolas (FRA), Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
12. Benko, René (AUT), Founder and Chairman of the Advisory Board, SIGNA Holding GmbH
13. Berner, Anne-Catherine (FIN), Minister of Transport and Communications
14. Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
15. Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
16. Brennan, John O. (USA), Senior Advisor, Kissinger Associates Inc.
17. Bsirske, Frank (DEU), Chairman, United Services Union
18. Buberl, Thomas (FRA), CEO, AXA
19. Bunn, M. Elaine (USA), Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
20. Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
21. Çakiroglu, Levent (TUR), CEO, Koç Holding A.S.
22. Çamlibel, Cansu (TUR), Washington DC Bureau Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper
23. Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, PRISA and El País
24. Clemet, Kristin (NOR), CEO, Civita
25. Cohen, David S. (USA), Former Deputy Director, CIA
26. Collison, Patrick (USA), CEO, Stripe
27. Cotton, Tom (USA), Senator
28. Cui, Tiankai (CHN), Ambassador to the United States
29. Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), CEO, Axel Springer SE
30. Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
31. Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus SE
32. Federspiel, Ulrik (DNK), Group Executive, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S
33. Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
34. Ferguson, Niall (USA), Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
35. Gianotti, Fabiola (ITA), Director General, CERN
36. Gozi, Sandro (ITA), State Secretary for European Affairs
37. Graham, Lindsey (USA), Senator
38. Greenberg, Evan G. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Chubb Group
39. Griffin, Kenneth (USA), Founder and CEO, Citadel Investment Group, LLC
40. Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor "Otto e mezzo", La7 TV
41. Guindos, Luis de (ESP), Minister of Economy, Industry and Competiveness
42. Haines, Avril D. (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor
43. Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University
44. Hamers, Ralph (NLD), Chairman, ING Group
45. Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation
46. Hennis-Plasschaert, Jeanine (NLD), Minister of Defence, The Netherlands
47. Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
48. Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn and Partner, Greylock
49. Houghton, Nicholas (GBR), Former Chief of Defence
50. Ischinger, Wolfgang (INT), Chairman, Munich Security Conference
51. Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
52. Johnson, James A. (USA), Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners
53. Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. (USA), Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
54. Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
55. Kengeter, Carsten (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Börse AG
56. Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.
57. Klatten, Susanne (DEU), Managing Director, SKion GmbH
58. Kleinfeld, Klaus (USA), Former Chairman and CEO, Arconic
59. Knot, Klaas H.W. (NLD), President, De Nederlandsche Bank
60. Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
61. Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
62. Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR
63. Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
64. Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
65. Lagarde, Christine (INT), Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
66. Lenglet, François (FRA), Chief Economics Commentator, France 2
67. Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
68. Liddell, Christopher (USA), Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives
69. Lööf, Annie (SWE), Party Leader, Centre Party
70. Mathews, Jessica T. (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
71. McAuliffe, Terence (USA), Governor of Virginia
72. McKay, David I. (CAN), President and CEO, Royal Bank of Canada
73. McMaster, H.R. (USA), National Security Advisor
74. Micklethwait, John (INT), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
75. Minton Beddoes, Zanny (INT), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
76. Molinari, Maurizio (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, La Stampa
77. Monaco, Lisa (USA), Former Homeland Security Officer
78. Morneau, Bill (CAN), Minister of Finance
79. Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
80. Murtagh, Gene M. (IRL), CEO, Kingspan Group plc
81. Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD)
82. Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
83. O'Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
84. Osborne, George (GBR), Editor, London Evening Standard
85. Papahelas, Alexis (GRC), Executive Editor, Kathimerini Newspaper
86. Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Co.
87. Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
88. Pind, Søren (DNK), Minister for Higher Education and Science
89. Puga, Benoît (FRA), Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honor and Chancellor of the National Order of Merit
90. Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
91. Reisman, Heather M. (CAN), Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
92. Rivera Díaz, Albert (ESP), President, Ciudadanos Party
93. Rosén, Johanna (SWE), Professor in Materials Physics, Linköping University
94. Ross, Wilbur L. (USA), Secretary of Commerce
95. Rubenstein, David M. (USA), Co-Founder and Co-CEO, The Carlyle Group
96. Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations and Former Treasury Secretary
97. Ruoff, Susanne (CHE), CEO, Swiss Post
98. Rutten, Gwendolyn (BEL), Chair, Open VLD
99. Sabia, Michael (CAN), CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
100. Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
101. Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Deputy Assistant to the President, National Security Council
102. Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Executive Chairman, Alphabet Inc.
103. Schneider-Ammann, Johann N. (CHE), Federal Councillor, Swiss Confederation
104. Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
105. Severgnini, Beppe (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, 7-Corriere della Sera
106. Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University
107. Slat, Boyan (NLD), CEO and Founder, The Ocean Cleanup
108. Spahn, Jens (DEU), Parliamentary State Secretary and Federal Ministry of Finance
109. Stephenson, Randall L. (USA), Chairman and CEO, AT&T
110. Stern, Andrew (USA), President Emeritus, SEIU and Senior Fellow, Economic Security Project
111. Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO
112. Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
113. Tertrais, Bruno (FRA), Deputy Director, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique
114. Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
115. Topsøe, Jakob Haldor (DNK), Chairman, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S
116. Ülgen, Sinan (TUR), Founding and Partner, Istanbul Economics
117. Vance, J.D. (USA), Author and Partner, Mithril
118. Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation
119. Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
120. Walter, Amy (USA), Editor, The Cook Political Report
121. Weston, Galen G. (CAN), CEO and Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Ltd and George Weston Companies
122. White, Sharon (GBR), Chief Executive, Ofcom
123. Wieseltier, Leon (USA), Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy, The Brookings Institution
124. Wolf, Martin H. (INT), Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times
125. Wolfensohn, James D. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn & Company
126. Wunsch, Pierre (BEL), Vice-Governor, National Bank of Belgium
127. Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Turner International
128. Zients, Jeffrey D. (USA), Former Director, National Economic Council
129. Zoellick, Robert B. (USA), Non-Executive Chairman, AllianceBernstein L.P.

Natrually, the secretive nature of the group has given birth to conspiracy theories. Some have claimed that the Bilderberg is a group of rich and powerful kingmakers seeking to impose a one world government. Whether that is true remains in the eye of the beholder, however one thing is clear: as the graph below shows, the members are connected to virtually every important and relevant organization, media outlet, company and political entity in the world.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...%20group_0.jpg



NOW YOU KNOW THE WEB OF SECRECY THAT ALL WORK TOGETHER AGAINST US - Benjaminis

WE DO NOT TRADE IN FREE MARKETS SO WE MUST BE AWARE OF THIS AND ANTICIPATE THEIR MOVES...

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2...i/#more-151842

Zbigniew Brzezinski


Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts
Brzezinski’s death at 89 years of age has generated a load of propaganda and disinformation, all of which serves one interest group or another or the myths that people find satisfying. I am not an expert on Brzezinski, and this is not an apology for him. He was a Cold Warrior, as essentially was everyone in Washington during the Soviet era.


For 12 years Brzezinski was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where I occupied the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy. When I was elected to that chair, CSIS was a part of Georgetown University. However, the president of Georgetown University was one of those liberals who hated Henry Kissinger, who was also our colleague, and the university president also hated Ronald Reagan for his rhetoric, not for his deeds about which the Georgetown president was uninformed. So I also was unwelcome. Whatever I was worth to CSIS, Kissinger was worth more, and CSIS was not going to give up Henry Kissinger. Therefore the strategic research institute split from Georgetown university. Brzezinski stayed with CSIS.


When my 1971 book, Alienation and the Soviet Economy, which had circulated clandestinely inside the Economic Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in mimeographed form for years, was republished in 1990 with an introduction by University of California, Berkeley, Professor Aaron Wildavsky, Brzezinski, along with Robert Conquest and two members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, provided cover endorsements for my book. Brzezinski wrote: “Professor Roberts’ explanation of Soviet economic development is timely, and it fills a noticeable void in the existing literature. The book is beneficial reading for experts and non-experts alike who wish to understand the theoretical Marxian framework within which the Soviet economy grew and declined.”


I quote his endorsement for two reasons. One is to show upfront that I might be biased in my account of Brzezinski. The other is to establish that both Brzezinski and I did not regard the Soviet Union as a long-term threat. I expected the Soviet economy to fail, which it did, and Brzezinski expected the Soviet Union to breakup along nationality lines, which it did under Washington’s supervision. Although we were both Cold Warriors—I was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger—both of us favored a peaceful, not a war or conflict resolution of the Cold War. Brzezinski was most certainly not a Neoconservative determined to remove Russia as a constraint on American unilateralism. Brzezinski, as National Security Advisor to President Carter, did not prevent SALT 2, which the Carter Administration honored despite the refusal of the US Senate to ratify it.


Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland in 1928. His father was a Polish diplomat posted to Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1938 Brzezinski’s father was posted to Montreal, Canada, as Consul General. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Yalta Conference in which Churchill and FDR assigned Poland to the “Soviet sphere of influence” resulted in Brzezinski growing up in Canada where he was educated. Subsequently he obtained a Ph.D. from Harvard University and became a professor at that university. Brzezinski has all the conspiracy marks against him. He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group. Fortunately for me, when I was nominated for membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, I was blackballed.


Brzezinski being Polish and his wife also being Eastern European is enough to explain his animosity toward Russia. However, Brzezinski was not a warmonger. He was an advisor to Hubert Humphrey’s presidential campaign, advocated de-escalation of US involvement in the Vietnam war and resigned from a US State Department position in protest to Washington’s expansion of the Vietnam war.
Simultaniously, he opposed George McGovern’s pacifism.


In my opinion, for what it is worth, Brzezinski wanted to make sure that America held on long enough for the Soviet Union to collapse from its internal contradictions. Brzezinski did not seek to impose American world hegemony. This is a neoconservative goal, not a Cold Warrior’s goal. As President Reagan emphasized, the point of “winning” the Cold War was to end it, not to achieve hegemony over the other party. Brzezinski’s strategy as National Security Advisor toward luring the Soviets into Afghanistan was to weaken the Soviet Union and, thereby, hasten an end to the Cold War.


These are the facts as I experienced them. If I am correct, the truth is different from what we are hearing both from the Russian and Western media, both of which portray Brzezinski as not only evil in wanting to destroy the Soviet Union, but also as the Cold Warrior who created the Cold War, a war that had begun three decades prior to Brzezinski’s rise as National Security Advisor.

It is ironic that Brzezinski’s approach to the Soviet Union is identical to Russia’s approach to the West today. Brzezinski preferred in place of Nixon/Kissinger detente to emphasize international law and human rights. This is Putin’s approach today toward Washington and Washington’s NATO vassals.


As I recall, Brzezinski wanted to use ideas, like V in V for Vendetta, against the Soviets and not military force. This, if memory serves, was the difference between Brzezinski and the military/security complex, which preferred force, and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who preferred arms control.


I was born into The Matrix. It took many decades, insider experience, and fortuitous experiences for me to escape. Brzezinski might have been one of the fortuitous events. I remember him telling me that as National Security Advisor he was awakened in the middle of the night with the message that a couple hundred Soviet ICBMs were on their way to America. Before he could clear his mind, he was told that it was several thousand ICBMs on their way to destroy America. As the futility of a response hit him, a third message reached him that it was all a mistake from a training exercise somehow being transferred into the early warning network.


In other words, Brzezinski understood how easy it was for mistakes to launch a nuclear holocaust. He wanted to end the Cold War for the same reason that Ronald Reagan wanted to end the Cold War. To make Brzezinski and Reagan the villians, as the left-wing does, when the real villians are the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes that have convinced Russia that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia, is a form of ideological idiocy.


But idiocy in the West is what we live with. The question is: how much longer can we survive our idiocy?

I think that the “Soviet Threat,” the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect. The patriotic war movies, the patriotic Memorial Days and July 4ths with emotional thanks to those who died “saving our freedoms,” which were never in danger from the Japanese and Germans, only from our own government, succeeded in brainwashing even National Security Advisors. Little wonder the insouciance of the American population today.


The Cold War was an orchestration of the military/security complex, and there are many victims. Brzezinski was a victim as the Cold War was his life. JFK was a victim as he lost his life to it. The Vietnamese, who died in the millions, were victims The photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl fleeing down the road in terror from the American napalm behind her made us aware that the Cold War had many innocent victims. The Soviet troops sent to Afghanistan were victims as were the Afghans themselves.


The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget.


Treading water while looking for a new justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, the military/security complex had President Clinton declare the US to be the World Policeman and to destroy Yugoslavia in the name of “human rights.” With Israeli and neoconservative input, the military/security complex used 9/11 to create the “Muslin Terrorist Threat.” This hoax has now murdered, maimed, dispossessed, and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries.


Despite 16 years of Washington’s wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the “Muslim threat” does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected.


The Muslim Threat was never a danger to the US. It is only a danger to Washington’s European vassal states, who had to accept millions of Muslim refugees from Washington’s wars. However, the newly created Russian Threat is a threat to every American as well as to every European.


Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia.


This dire Russian announcement received no western press coverage. No high official of any Western government, Trump included, called Putin to give reassurances that no such attack on Russia was being planned.


So, what happens next time when a false alarm, such as the one Brzezinski received, is received by his counterpart in Moscow or the National Security Council? Will the animosities resurrected by the evil US military/security complex result in the Russians or the US believing the false signal?


The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction.


The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as “Russian agents,” “anti-semites,” and “conspiracy theorists.” When you hear a source called a “Russian agent,” an “anti-semite,” or a “conspiracy theorist,” you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth.


You will never, ever, get the truth from the Western media or from any Western government. (See:http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...er-us-sailors/)


The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex’s need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon.

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: As we await the PUBLIC TESTIMONY of former director of the FBI on Thursday, June 8, 2017, PLEASE KEEP THIS FASCINATING EXPOSE IN MIND. WE never hear about this from the Fourth Estate or from the Military - Industrial Complex.

https://mishtalk.com/2017/06/04/anot...ay/#more-46130


Another Terrorist Attack in UK: Zero Tolerance says Theresa May, Trump Tweets In

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by Mish | June 4, 2017 1:14:56 |



A London Bridge terror attack Saturday evening left 7 dead and close to 50 wounded as three armed men drove a van on sidewalks then stabbed a number of people with knives. Police shot the attackers dead but as many as 12 other suspects are still at large.


This was the third terrorist attack since Theresa May became prime minister. It was the second during the campaign for the June 8 U.K. general election. Impact on the election is unclear.


Theresa May now veers to zero tolerance in an Enough is Enough speech.


https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=529&h=311
Image from Bloomberg article May Ramps Up Terror Rhetoric as Pre-Election Attack Kills Seven.
Wales Online reports on Eight Key Messages in Theresa Mays Enough is Enough Terrorism Speech.

1. Things need to change.
2. Britain has been too tolerant of extremism in the UK.
3. We are witnessing copycat terrorism.
4. We need to see action from big internet companies.
5. Britains counter-terrorism strategy will be reviewed and prison sentences may increase.
6. Military intervention alone wont deal with Islamic extremism.
7. Five plots have been stopped since March.
8. The general election will go ahead on Thursday.

In regards to point 1, May stated, We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are.

In regards to Point 2, May stated, there is to be frank far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

In regards to point 3, May stated, Terrorism breeds terrorism and perpetrators copy another and often using the crudest of means of attack

In Regards to point 4, May stated, [We] cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide.


Trump Tweets




Follow
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images..._V2_normal.jpgDonald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse
7:19 AM - 4 Jun 2017




Follow
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images..._V2_normal.jpgDonald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"
7:31 AM - 4 Jun 2017









Terror Dominates Election
Four days from now, the UK holds national elections. Bloomberg comments Mays Journey to Zero Tolerance as Terror Dominates Election.

March 22 Parliament Attack

A lone attacker drove his car across Westminster Bridge, mounting the sidewalk and mowing down pedestrians before running into the precincts of parliament and stabbing a police officer. He was shot dead. Five people died.

Mays message: Tomorrow morning, Parliament will meet as normal. We will come together as normal, she said. Londoners and others from around the world who have come here to visit this great City will get up and go about their day as normal. They will board their trains, they will leave their hotels, they will walk these streets, they will live their lives.

What Corbyn said: I know that Londoners and people across the country will stand together in defense of our values and diversity.


May 22 Manchester Bombing
The British-born son of Libyan refugees detonated a bomb in Manchester at 10:30 p.m. as teenagers, parents and their young children left a pop concert. Twenty-two people died. May stayed up most of the night coordinating the response to the attack and appeared outside her residence the following morning and later in the evening to announce the threat level would be raised to critical, the highest level.

Mays message: We will take every measure available to us and provide every additional resource we can to the police and the security services as they work to protect the public. And while we mourn the victims of last nights appalling attack, we stand defiant. The spirit of Manchester and the spirit of Britain is far mightier than the sick plots of depraved terrorists, that is why the terrorists will never win and we will prevail.


What Corbyn said: This is an appalling act of violence against people, and it must be totally and unreservedly and completely condemned. We must support those people who have suffered so much. In these circumstances we have to come together.
Campaigning was then suspended for three days and, when it restarted, Corbyn wore a black tie as he delivered a speech on U.K. foreign policy in central London. The war on terror is simply not working, he said as he made the case for an overhaul of foreign policy and criticized Mays government for squeezing police budgets.


Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home, Corbyn, a long-time critic of U.K. foreign interventions, said.


At a meeting of Group of Seven leaders in Sicily, May was swift and brutal in her response as polls showed her lead slipping. I have been here today at the G-7 working with other international leaders to fight terrorism. At the same time Jeremy Corbyn has said that terror attacks in Britain are our own fault, May said, breaking with the show of cross-party unity after the attack.


Election Home Stretch
On June 2, in a question and answer sessions with voters on BBC TV, Corbyn was repeatedly asked about his failure to condemn bombings by the Irish Republican Army, a terrorist group that carried out a series of attacks in Britain. He was not asked about Islamist extremism.


The following day, at around 10 p.m., a white van drove into pedestrians in central London. Three men with fake suicide vests began to knife people on a Saturday night out. Seven were killed before the three attackers were shot dead by police, eight minutes after they were called.

Mays rhetoric has certainly changed. Will terrorism impact the election? Which way?


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...QSK_normal.jpg

Mike Mish Shedlock @MishGEA

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Susan Rice Slams "Lying" Putin; Rejects Muslim Ban: "They Need To Feel Valued"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden
Jun 4, 2017 2:20 PM


Susan Rice vehemently dismissed Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, during a Sunday morning interview on ABC's "This Week".
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...70603_rice.jpg
Following Putin's comments during a press conference last week that "patriotic minded" private Russian hackers unconnected to the government could be behind major hacks that interfered in other nation's elections...


“If they are patriotically minded, they start making their contributions — which are right, from their point of view — to the fight against those who say bad things about Russia,”
And denials of any Russian government involvement in hacking...
"We don't engage in that at the state level."
The Hill reports that Rice, the former national security adviser to President Obama, said:


"Frankly, he's lying,"

"The reality is — as all of our intelligence agencies have come together to affirm with high confidence — the Russian government at the highest levels was behind the very unprecedented effort to meddle in our 2016 presidential election."

Extending her allegations into fact, Rice said the country needs to understand how and why that happened. The country also needs to find out whether there is "any evidence to suggest that there were those on the American side who facilitated that meddling," she said, referring to allegations that members of President Trump's campaign colluded with Moscow.

But Rice was not done, turning her attention to President Trump's travel ban, she dismissed claims this would make America safer...
"There's really no evidence to suggest that by banning Muslims, or banning Muslims from a particular set of six countries, that we would make ourselves here in the United States safer,"

"And that's, I believe, one of the major reasons why the courts thus far have been very skeptical of the travel ban."

She also warned against isolating Muslims.
"I think there's a very real risk that by stigmatizing and isolating Muslims from particular countries and Muslims in general," she said, "that we alienate the very communities here in the United States whose cooperation we most need to detect and prevent these homegrown extremists from being able to carry out attacks."

She stressed the importance of cooperation from Muslim-American communities.
"They need to feel that they are valued and part of this challenge that we face together as a nation," she said.
We suspect there are a few people in Manchester and London tonight who feel "hugging this out" is not the appropriate response.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WR...orthwoods.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wrh2.gif
Operation Northwoods


US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS
TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR


From BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following.
Scanned and edited by NY Transfer News.

...In [Joint Chief's chair] Lemnitzer's view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over. [JFK assassination legend has it some general presided over the fudgy JFK autopsy. --Mk]


For those military officers who were sitting on the fence, the Kennedy administration's botched Bay of Pigs invasion was the last straw. "The Bay of Pigs fiasco broke the dike," said one report at the time. "President Kennedy was pilloried by the super patriots as a 'no-win' chief . . . The Far Right became a fount of proposals born of frustration and put forward in the name of anti-Communism. . . Active-duty commanders played host to anti-Communist seminars on their bases and attended or addressed Right-wing meetings elsewhere."


Although no one in Congress could have known it at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.


According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.


Operation Northwoods
Click images for full sized scans
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods1_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods2_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods3_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods4_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods5_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods6_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods7_small.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods8_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ods9_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ds10_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ds11_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ds12_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ds13_small.gifhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ds14_small.gif
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.


The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public's memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy's inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse.

Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.


Although no such war took place, the idea was not lost on General Lemnitzer But he and his colleagues were frustrated by Kennedy's failure to authorize their plan, and angry that Castro had not provided an excuse to invade.


The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale's various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.


As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly "go soft" on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. "World opinion, and the United Nations forum," said a secret JCS document, "should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."


Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths, all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer financed homes and limousines.


One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20,1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic.]"


This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war.


Glenn lifted into history without mishap, leaving Lemnitzer and the Chiefs to begin devising new plots which they suggested be carried out "within the time frame of the next few months."


Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."


The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.

We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:
*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."


*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."


*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."


Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."


Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:
An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.


From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.


Finally, there was a plan to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack." It was a particularly believable operation given the decade of shoot downs that had just taken place.


In the final sentence of his letter to Secretary McNamara recommending the operations, Lemnitzer made a grab for even more power asking that the Joint Chiefs be placed in charge of carrying out Operation Northwoods and the invasion. "It is recommended," he wrote, "that this responsibility for both oven and covert military operations be assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff."


At 2:30 on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 13, 1962, Lemnitzer went over last-minute details of Operation Northwoods with his covert action chief, Brigadier General William H. Craig, and signed the document. He then went to a "special meeting" in McNamara's office. An hour later he met with Kennedy's military representative, General Maxwell Taylor. What happened during those meetings is unknown. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer that there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.

Undeterred, Lemnitzer and the Chiefs persisted, virtually to the point of demanding that they be given authority to invade and take over Cuba. About a month after submitting Operation Northwoods, they met the "tank," as the JCS conference room was called, and agreed on the wording of a tough memorandum to McNamara. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future," they wrote. "Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime."


Lemnitzer was virtually rabid in his hatred of Communism in general and Castro in particular "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war" he continued. "They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of UN action." However; what Lemnitzer was suggesting was not freeing the Cuban people, who were largely in support of Castro, but imprisoning them in a U.S. military-controlled police state. "Forces would assure rapid essential military control of Cuba," he wrote. "Continued police action would be required."


Concluding, Lemnitzer did not mince words: "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that a national policy of early military intervention in Cuba be adopted by the United States. They also recommend that such intervention be undertaken as soon as possible and preferably before the release of National Guard and Reserve forces presently on active duty."


By then McNamara had virtually no confidence in his military chief and was rejecting nearly every proposal the general sent to him. The rejections became so routine, said one of Lemnitzer's former staff officers, that the staffer told the general that the situation was putting the military in an "embarrassing rut." But Lemnitzer replied, "I am the senior military office--it's my job to state what I believe and it's his [McNamara's] job to approve or disapprove." "McNamara's arrogance was astonishing," said Lemnitzer's aide, who knew nothing of Operation Northwoods. "He gave General Lemnitzer very short shrift and treated him like a schoolboy. The general almost stood at attention when he came into the room. Everything was 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir.'


Within months, Lemnitzer was denied a second term as JCS chairman and transferred to Europe as chief of NATO. Years later President Gerald Ford appointed Lemnitzer, a darling of the Republican right, to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Lemnitzer's Cuba chief, Brigadier General Craig, was also transferred. Promoted to major general, he spent three years as chief of the Army Security Agency, NSA's military arm.


Because of the secrecy and illegality of Operation Northwoods, all details remained hidden for forty years. Lemnitzer may have thought that all copies of the relevant documents had been destroyed; he was not one to leave compromising material lying around. Following the Bay of Pigs debacle, for example, he ordered Brigadier General David W Gray, Craig's predecessor as chief of the Cuba project within the JCS, to destroy all his notes concerning Joint Chiefs actions and discussions during that period. Gray's meticulous notes were the only detailed official records of what happened within the JCS during that time. According to Gray, Lemnitzer feared a congressional investigation and therefore wanted any incriminating evidence destroyed.


With the evidence destroyed, Lemnitzer felt free to lie to Congress. When asked, during secret hearings before a Senate committee, if he knew of any Pentagon plans for a direct invasion of Cuba he said he did not. Yet detailed JCS invasion plans had been drawn up even before Kennedy was inaugurated. And additional plans had been developed since. The consummate planner and man of details also became evasive, suddenly encountering great difficulty in recalling key aspects of the operation, as if he had been out of the country during the period. It was a sorry spectacle. Senator Gore called for Lemnitzer to be fired.

"We need a shake up of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" he said. "We direly need a new chairman, as well as new members." No one had any idea of Operation Northwoods.


Because so many documents were destroyed, it is difficult to determine how many senior officials were aware of Operation Northwoods. As has been described, the document was signed and fully approved by Lemnitzer and the rest of the Joint Chiefs and addressed to the Secretary of Defense for his signature. Whether it went beyond McNamara to the president and the attorney general is not known.


Even after Lemnitzer lost his job, the Joint Chiefs kept planning "pretext" operations at least into 1963. Among their proposals was a deliberately create a war between Cuba and any of a number of .n American neighbors. This would give the United States military an excuse to come in on the side of Cuba's adversary and get rid of "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS [Organization of Americas] member could be set up," said one proposal, "and the attacked state could be urged to 'take measures of self-defense and request ice from the U.S. and OAS; the U.S. could almost certainly obtain necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."


Among the nations they suggested that the United States secretly were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Both were members of the Commonwealth; thus, by secretly attacking them and then blaming Cuba, the United States could lure England into the war Castro. The report noted, "Any of the contrived situations de above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."


The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for ration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at] Guantanamo." The act suggested--bribing a foreign nation to launch a violent attack American military installation--was treason.


In May 1963, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze sent a the White House proposing "a possible scenario whereby an attack on a United States reconnaissance aircraft could be exploited toward the end of effecting the removal of the Castro regime." In the event Cuba attacked a U-2, the plan proposed sending in additional American pilots, this time on dangerous, unnecessary low-level reconnaissance missions with the expectation that they would also be shot down, thus provoking a war "[T]he U.S. could undertake various measures designed to stimulate the Cubans to provoke a new incident," said the plan. Nitze, however, did not volunteer to be one of the pilots.


One idea involved sending fighters across the island on "harassing reconnaissance" and "show-off" missions "flaunting our freedom of action, hoping to stir the Cuban military to action." "Thus," said the plan, "depending above all on whether the Cubans were or could be made to be trigger-happy, the development of the initial downing of a reconnaissance plane could lead at best to the elimination of Castro, perhaps to the removal of Soviet troops and the installation of ground inspection in Cuba, or at the least to our demonstration of firmness on reconnaissance." About a month later, a low-level flight was made across Cuba, but unfortunately for the Pentagon, instead of bullets it produced only a protest.


Lemnitzer was a dangerous-perhaps even unbalanced-right-wing extremist in an extraordinarily sensitive position during a critical period.

But Operation Northwoods also had the support of every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even senior Pentagon official

Paul Nitze argued in favor of provoking a phony war with Cuba. The fact that the most senior members of all the services and the Pentagon could be so out of touch with reality and the meaning of democracy would be hidden for four decades.


In retrospect, the documents offer new insight into the thinking of the military's star-studded leadership. Although they never succeeded in launching America into a phony war with Cuba, they may have done so with Vietnam. More than 50,000 Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese were eventually killed in that war.


It has long been suspected that the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident-the spark that led to America's long war in Vietnam-was largely staged or provoked by U.S. officials in order to build up congressional and public support for American involvement. Over the years, serious questions have been raised about the alleged attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two American destroyers in the Gulf But defenders of the Pentagon have always denied such charges, arguing that senior officials would never engage in such deceit.


Now, however, in light of the Operation Northwoods documents, it at deceiving the public and trumping up wars for Americans to fight and die in was standard, approved policy at the highest levels of the Pentagon. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin seems right out of the Operation Northwoods playbook: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation." One need only replace "Guantanamo Bay" with "Tonkin Gulf," and "Cuba" with "North Vietnam" and the Gulf of Tonkin incident may or may not have been stage-managed, but the senior Pentagon leadership at the time was clearly capable of such deceit.

Book epigram:
"The public has a duty to watch its Government closely and keep it on the right track." --Lieutenant Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, NSA, _NSA Newsletter_, June 1997
More at ...
http://larouchepub.com/other/2001/28..._northwds.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2001/04/25/nsa
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
See also: The 9/11 Reichstag Fire

COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: History just repeating itself as we ready for hearings on Thursday June 8, 2017.

https://www.forexcrunch.com/category...letter20160110

BROWSING: US DOLLAR FORECAST
US dollar forecast: Forex events that will rock currencies ► focusing on major events and especially on publications in the US, moving the US dollar (greenback). Here is some general information. Scroll down for the latest US dollar outlook


USD and forex general characteristics
The United States Dollar is the reserve currency of the world. The dollar is the currency of choice for oil prices as well as other commodities. Foreign exchange pairs are divided into majors, minors, and crosses. Both majors and minors include the USD.


US events influence currencies more than any other event. The decisions and statements of Federal Reserve officials and economic developments in the US make the biggest waves. The US economy is the biggest in the world.


The outlook consists of mostly US economic events but also key market-moving figures from other major economies. The euro-zone, the UK, and Japan stand out.


Recent USD Moves
The US dollar enjoyed a strong rally following the election of Donald Trump. The Federal Reserve had already begun raising rates on the background of an improving economy. The fiscal stimulus that the new President promised supported the greenback. The upwards move was compounded by an upbeat outlook by Fed Chair Yellen.


However, the winds have changed in 2017. A “Donald Disappointment“, especially as seen in the health-care debacle, hurt the dollar. In addition, the Fed remains cautious after the “dovish hike“.


Trump’s scandals have reached a boiling point where an impeachment is possible. See how to trade an impeachment with the USD. The US economy is not looking good, with poor growth in Q1 2017.


Latest weekly US Dollar forecast
Forex Weekly Outlook – June 5-9 2017
By Yohay Elam on JUN 2, 2017


The US dollar was on the back foot throughout most of the week as data remained mixed and speculation about the Fed decision mounts. A rate decision in Australia, the ECB’s critical decision and the UK elections stand out in the first full week of June. Here are the highlights for the upcoming week.


Fed members sent mixed messages. It seems that they are trapped in the expectations they created for a June hike, but they may make it a “dovish hike”. Their favorite inflation figure continued falling. In the UK, some opinion polls showed a tightening of the race, causing the pound to slide. But not polls are equal and the only that counts is the vote coming this week. Reports about an upgrade to the ECB’s assessment helped the euro, winning over weaker inflation. Commodity currencies resumed their falls as China’s PMI slipped to contraction territory and oil prices are grinding lower.


Updates:

1. US ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI: Monday, 14:00. Most of the US economy is in the services (non-manufacturing) sector. The publication usually serves as a hint towards the Non-Farm Payrolls. This time, the sting is gone, but the report still has merit on its own. Back in April, the score beat expectations with 57.5 points. A score of 57.3 is predicted now.
2. Australian rate decision: Tuesday, 4:30. The Reserve Bank of Australia last changed interest rates in August but has adopted a neutral stance since then. The Cash Rate is expected to remain unchanged at 1.50% for another month and the Aussie will move on the tone of the statement. On one hand, the Australian economy is doing fine, with solid jobs growth and consumption. However, worries about China weigh on the outlook. In the past, the RBA took advantage of downfalls in the exchange rate to push the currency even lower. Will they hit the A$ when it’s down once again?
3. US JOLTS Job Openings: Tuesday, 14:00. If the Federal Reserve needs yet another jobs report in order to make its decision, the number of job openings serves as a hint. Despite being a laggard (the data is for April against May for the NFP), the publication still moves the needle as the Fed eyes it. In March, job opening stood at 5.74 million annualized. A small slide to 5.65 million is on the cards.
4. Australian GDP: Wednesday, 1:30. Australia publishes its GDP report only once per quarter, without any revisions. The economy enjoyed a strong finish to 2016, growing by 1.1% q/q. Q1 will already be different. Treasury Secretary Morrisson hinted that we see some “fluctuations”. A growth rate of 0.3% is projected.
5. Crude Oil Inventories: Wednesday, 14:30. The weekly measure of oil inventories has an immediate impact on oil prices but also reflects on the global economy. Lower supply and marginally higher demand pushed inventories lower, helping oil prices stabilize.
6. UK elections: Thursday-Friday. Brits are going to the polls less than a year after the EU Referendum after PM Theresa May called a snap election. At first, it seemed that her Conservative Party is set for a landslide victory. A wide majority in parliament would help her move to a soft Brexit, as she wouldn’t have to worry about the hardline “Brexiteers”. Since the announcement, her party is ceding ground to the opposition Labour Party. A small majority for May would be slightly disappointing while a hung parliament (as suggested in this poll) could hit the pound quite hard. Polls have a big impact on the pound. They vary quite a bit: those showing a big victory for the May’s Tories rely on a high turnout for older people, as seen in previous campaigns. Those showing a tighter race rely on an upswing in youngsters coming out to vote. During the day, we will get turnout numbers. A low turnout will help the pound and a higher one will keep it under pressure. Initial exit polls are due at 21:00 GMT and real result will drip drop from 23:00. These are the most illiquid hours of trading and movements could be significant. The full results should be clear before European markets open at 7:00 GMT.
7. ECB rate decision: Thursday, the decision is at 11:45, Draghi’s press conference at 12:30. Will the ECB stop seeing risks as tilted to the downside? Will they hint at the beginning of the end of QE? After reducing the amount of monthly buys of bonds from 80 to 60 billion euros, the ECB is still on course to continue with the money-printing scheme through 2017. The big question is what’s next. Given the recent improvement in the economy and expectations for higher inflation, the ECB might provide an upgraded outlook, setting the scene for an announcement about tapering QE in September. Note that this is an important ECB meeting, where they also release new forecasts for growth and inflation. In many past events, Draghi dragged down the euro. Will it be different this time? According to some reports, the ECB is set to ignore the most recent drop in inflation and upgrade its assessment.
8. Canadian jobs report: Friday, 12:30. This time, Canada’s job report gets the full stage as the NFP is behind us. In April, the Canadian economy gained only 3.2K jobs and the unemployment rate stood at 6.5%. A gain of 11.5K jobs is on the cards and the unemployment rate is forecast to advance to 6.6%.

*All times are GMT

https://www.thefelderreport.com/2017...sk-this-is-it/

What is the opposite of a margin of safety? This is a question Ive been considering because it seems thats exactly what investors have settled for in passively buying equities today. But first we should probably define margin of safety before we can begin to understand its opposite.


Ben Graham famously wrote in The Intelligent Investor, Confronted with a challenge to distill the secret of sound investment into three words, we venture the motto, MARGIN OF SAFETY. Here we have Warren Buffetts mentor telling us these are the three most important words in investing. So what do they mean?


Well, Buffett explains it like this: When you build a bridge, you insist it can carry 30,000 pounds, but you only drive 10,000 pound trucks across it. And that same principle works in investing. When you buy a stock, you estimate its intrinsic value and then try to buy it at a discount that allows for a possible error in judgement or some unforeseen, adverse development.


In this case, if things go wrong the discount you demand helps protect your principal. For example, say you evaluate a company is worth $40 per share and end up buying it at $20. If it turns out its really only worth $20 you didnt, in fact, risk very much.


But demanding a margin of safety is not only interesting from the risk side of the equation. It also offers greater potential reward. If it turns out the company whose stock you bought for $20 is, in fact, worth $40 and the market comes around to your view then you just generated a 100% return before you even began.


The point here is that the margin of safety concept throws the traditional relationships between risk and reward out the window. The idea that you have to take greater risk in order to achieve greater return is not valid in the eyes of those who believe in Ben Grahams teaching. In fact, its just the opposite. The greater margin of safety you are able to demand, the less risk you assume and the greater potential reward you stand to reap.


Imagine that $40 company can be bought for just $10 in the open market. A 75% discount to intrinsic value affords a greater margin of safety than the 50% discount we discussed earlier. Thus we are taking even less risk. And if our analysis proves valid once the market realizes this fact we stand to generate a 300% return rather than just 100%.


So now that we have covered what margin of safety means lets think about that bridge analogy again. If it is built to support 30,000 pounds its no problem to run 10,000 pound trucks. However, if we start running 30,000 or even 40,000 pounds on it regularly we might have a problem. The same goes for paying above intrinsic value for a stock.


But its even more troublesome than that because of the second attribute related to the margin of safety concept. Not only are we taking more risk by eliminating our margin for error we are also reducing our potential rate of return. In fact, the higher the price we pay the greater the risk we take AND the lower return we can achieve.


Considering the price-to-sales ratio for the median stock in the S&P 500 is higher than ever before and to a significant degree, you might say investors are taking the greatest amount of risk for the least amount of potential return in history. In other words, if there was ever an example of reward-free risk this is it.


https://www.thefelderreport.com/wp-c...M-1024x521.png

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ddc02e...bc54256605.png
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ddc02e...88eaefea1e.png
Hi Trader
Here is a list of the scheduled economic events with the highest expected impact for the week to come, in GMT Time. If you go to our Eco calendar, you will see the full details of each event and be able to costumize the timezone.

Open Economic Calendar
MONDAY, JUNE 05
01:00 AUD TD Securities Inflation (YoY) (May)
01:00 AUD TD Securities Inflation (MoM) (May)
01:45 CNY Caixin China Services PMI (May)
07:15 SPA Markit Services PMI (May)
08:00 EUR Markit PMI Composite (May)
08:00 EUR Markit Services PMI (May)
12:30 USD Unit Labor Costs (Q1)
12:30 USD Nonfarm Productivity (Q1)
13:45 USD Markit Services PMI (May)
13:45 USD Markit PMI Composite (May)
14:00 USD ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI (May)
14:00 USD Factory Orders (MoM) (Apr)
14:05 USD Labor Market Conditions Index (May)
23:01 GBP BRC Like-For-Like Retail Sales (YoY) (May)

TUESDAY, JUNE 06
04:30 AUD RBA Rate Statement Report
04:30 AUD RBA Interest Rate Decision
14:00 CAD Ivey Purchasing Managers Index s.a (May)
14:00 CAD Ivey Purchasing Managers Index (May)
23:30 AUD AiG Performance of Construction Index (May)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 07
01:30 AUD Gross Domestic Product (YoY) (Q1)
01:30 AUD Gross Domestic Product (QoQ) (Q1)
09:00 EUR Gross Domestic Product s.a. (QoQ) (Q1)
09:00 EUR Gross DomesticProduct s.a. (YoY) (Q1)
19:00 USD Consumer Credit Change (Apr)
23:01 GBP RICS Housing Price Balance (May)
23:50 JPY Foreign investment in Japan stocks (Jun 2)
23:50 JPY Foreign bond investment (Jun 2)

THURSDAY, JUNE 08
24h GBP Parliamentary Election
01:30 AUD Imports (Apr)
01:30 AUD Exports (Apr)
01:30 AUD Trade Balance (Apr)
02:30 CNY Trade Balance CNY (May)
02:30 CNY Imports (YoY) (May)
02:30 CNY Imports (YoY) CNY (May)
02:30 CNY Trade Balance USD (May)
02:30 CNY Exports (YoY) CNY (May)
02:30 CNY Exports (YoY) (May)
05:00 JPY Eco Watchers Survey: Current (May)
05:00 JPY Eco Watchers Survey: Outlook (May)
05:45 CHF Unemployment Rate s.a (MoM) (May)
07:15 CHF Consumer Price Index (MoM) (May)
07:15 CHF Consumer Price Index (YoY) (May)
11:45 EUR ECB Deposit Rate Decision
11:45 EUR ECB Interest Rate Decision
12:15 CAD Housing Starts s.a (YoY) (May)
12:30 USD Initial Jobless Claims (Jun 2)
12:30 EUR ECB Monetary policy statement and press conference
12:30 CAD New Housing Price Index (YoY) (Apr)
12:30 CAD New Housing Price Index (MoM) (Apr)

FRIDAY, JUNE 09
01:30 CNY Producer Price Index (YoY) (May)
01:30 AUD Home Loans (Apr)
01:30 AUD Investment Lending for Homes (Apr)
01:30 CNY Consumer Price Index (YoY) (May)
01:30 CNY Consumer Price Index (MoM) (May)
04:30 JPY Tertiary Industry Index (MoM) (Apr)
06:00 GER Current Account n.s.a. (Apr)
06:00 GER Imports (MoM) (Apr)
06:00 GER Exports (MoM) (Apr)
06:00 GER Trade Balance s.a. (Apr)
08:30 GBP Consumer Inflation Expectations
08:30 GBP Industrial Production (MoM) (Apr)
08:30 GBP Manufacturing Production (MoM) (Apr)
08:30 GBP Industrial Production (YoY) (Apr)
08:30 GBP Manufacturing Production (YoY) (Apr)
12:30 CAD Net Change in Employment (May)
12:30 CAD Participation rate (May)
12:30 CAD Unemployment Rate (May)