32 Comments

So true! The tail is wagging the dog.

I know smart people from Chicago who are happily planning their springtime trip to Europe. The NYT and WaPo are their fodder, and they cannot be persuaded to look elsewhere.

I am reminded of the end of WWII when Emperor Hirohito came on the radio, and Japanese people were shocked to just hear his voice. Then he told them they had lost the war...another great shock since throughout the war their media had proclaimed them occupiers of the moral high ground and the clear winners (so your sacrifices are worth it). Finally, he described the Americans swarming ashore as monsters, and so for many citizens of the more delicate sort, it would be preferable to take their own lives.

Propaganda is the oxygen of all wars. How can people forget that!

Expand full comment

Hey Mark, what do you think? I have a really hard time believing Powell was not aware of the pandemic plan. https://brownstone.org/articles/maybe-the-fed-too-was-trolled/

And Jeffrey Tucker skips lightly over the near collapse of the repo market, and other bigger things that went bump in the night of Fall of 2019 quite aside from Event 201.

"On September 17, 2019, interest rates in the overnight repurchase agreement ('repo') market spiked to nearly 10%. That is to say that banks would not take 5, 6, or even 7 percent interest to lend out cash to other banks that was fully collateralized with Treasury bonds, which are generally called 'as good as cash' or 'risk free'.... More than $200 billion was injected as a backstop into the market to ensure liquidity.... But something else happened around that time, and most people never knew about it, or quickly forgot about. The Federal Reserve also loaned $4.5 trillion to just three banks.... It was only on December 31, 2021 that the Federal Reserve quietly released the names of the three banks: JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Citibank." ~ Mathew Crawford, Monetary Wars.

Expand full comment
Nov 5, 2022·edited Nov 5, 2022

Totally OT but fwiw, Professor Turley is in fine form this morning (tinyurl.com/4uy82252). One excerpt:

The President added “the ability of newspapers to have much impact is de minimis.” That last statement seemed to lament the loss of a close and active ally for the Democrats. Neutrality is anathema if you have largely been able to control political and social exchanges on social media.

What the President said next, however, was particularly telling and chilling:

“How do people know the truth? What do they — how do they make — make a distinction between fact and fiction? There’s so much — so much going on. And we’re in the middle of this.”

Indeed, perish the thought that citizens might be left to pursue the truth on their own without the government or surrogates in the media framing it for them. How could we possibly “know the truth” without our social media overlords?

This view of citizens as gullible dupes needing to be lead to the truth is a recurring theme among Democrats and media allies. It was the theme of a “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” conference at the University of Chicago with the leading Democratic leaders and media leaders in Chicago last year, including former President Barack Obama. The conference discussed how the views of the public could be shaped if government and media figures worked together to frame what is true and what is not.

Former President Barack Obama flogged this false line at Stanford in April 2022. He started by declaring himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”

Expand full comment

Speaking of "More about Everything"... Look up Daniel Dale (CNN Fact checker) on Twitter. Read his recent article about Biden's lies. Peruse the Twitter comments. Fascinating sword falling.

Expand full comment

Really excellent summary of Luongo's views! Thank you, Mark. I have bookmarked this for quick reference. One thing I had not thought of was the immense cost to the U.S. of a war with Russia and the financial impact of such being used by Davos to attack the U.S. economy and stress the Fed. All the more reason to hope the Russian SMO ends as quickly as possible and that the Republicans will exert some influence to prevent any potential escalation after Nov. 8.

Expand full comment

Thank you guys. This talk absolutely blew my mind, not least because it explaines what Oz has been doing behind the curtain. For people like me, ignorant of world economics, it has been moral distress that wears down the feelings of outrage I would otherwise have. Perhaps it's age. War is always about money. It just breaks my heart that all these people in Ukraine have died and are dying for nothing, while Rishi and Christine and Ursula will not even be turning down the temperature in their swimming pools.

Expand full comment

"Meaning in History" - this post should be pinned! It does an amazing job ascribing meaning to this monumental shift in power, and its place in history. Great stuff Mark.

Expand full comment

"... to get the US into the UK’s war. "

Given that I'm not an expert - when you look fe. at the body language between Klaus Schwab and different heads of state and other high ranking politicians. Most of the time it looks like their is a subtle power play going on between Schwab and high ranking politicians from the US (it's always in the handshakes).

They don't behave or look as servile as fe. people like Trudeau, Ardern or all the politicians from the EU.

That doesn't mean, they have noble intentions or different goals, but that there is struggle about who is running the show.

Expand full comment

Factional struggles are very interesting historically. Often the factions are not clearly defined and very rarely are there merely 2 factions. Many individuals are members of multiple factions, sometimes unknowingly. There is almost always in-fighting inside factions, as everyone is jockeying for advantage and position, which can lead to the splitting of a faction.

Tom's WEF v. Fed idea is likely true, in part, but the overall picture is much more complex. Yes, for the last hundred years, since the founding of the Fed and the Council of Foreign Relations, US policies have largely served British interests, but only to a point. FDR worked to destroy the British empire and build up the Soviet Union. Decolonization was directly the resulted of US policies from during and after WW2.

At some point, which looks like the late 80s/90s, the Brits re-established control over Wall Street and thus US foreign policy. Likely that US actors in the system (Bush/Clinton/Greenspan/Wall Street/etc) thought they were still running things, but control gradually left the US.

Of course, the Maxwell/Epstein blackmail operation really took off during this time period, which is ultimately a Mossad operation.

The WEF thought it had China linked into its system, but Trump broke that. China is now breaking free and the SCO and BRICS are not going along with either the Fed or WEF. Trump's nationalist anti-globalist philosophy, which started before Trump and was noticed by Prof. Mark Blythe, is a reaction to WEF overreach. Xi is China first. Putin is China first. Modi is India first. Edrogan is Turkey first. MbS is Saudi Arabia first. Etc. The expanded BRICS are a combination of powerful producers and the adoption of a parallel currency exchange system to SWIFT and the end of the petrodollar will further weaken both the Fed and the WEF..

It will be interesting to see how Brazil turns out. It was clearly a fraudulent, 2020 style election. Lula has been very WEF friendly in the past, even though is background was a worker organizer. He governed as a member of the global elite and his family looted like a member of that elite. The WEF faction got him out of prison and stole the election for him. But the people are not accepting it.

Brazil was under military rule until the mid 80s and many people look back at the time with good thoughts. It was not a repressive military regime and there were only mild political restrictions. The pre-coup president of Brazil, Goulart, had been attempting a communist coup in 1964. I would not be surprised if Lula did not become president.

The WEF and its major players just are not as smart as they think they are. When the multipolar world fully develops after the end of the Ukraine war, they will lose even more power. They know this and this why Ukraine is so important to their power. When Babylon falls, its fall will be mighty.

Expand full comment

Hence, US banks warming back up to Trump...

Expand full comment

Any thoughts on how this affects Canada?

Expand full comment

Excellent post, Mark!

I'm still not clear on his Theory of Everything, as too many players in the world, China, India, & Russia, for examples, are left out of the matrix. So "everything" is not in the theory. This is where adding Martin Armstrong in fills things out, and Hudson gets you the Chinese view of the "everything".

Fascinating, really, if it weren't so damned serious!

Expand full comment

Lot's of trees here...I'm not sure we're seeing the forest clearly yet.

Expand full comment
author

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/who_has_really_been_running_our_country.html

So who is the power behind the curtain? A lot of people say it's Barack Obama, or maybe Susan Rice. But the truth is that neither of them is capable of orchestrating something on this scale. Obama never really got anywhere on his own, and Susan Rice is a middleweight at best.

This has all the fingerprints of the Soros organization.

Expand full comment

Tom Luongo‘s theory does fit the facts.

The anti Nuclear fact of European politics is an exception.

WEF has globalist company influence.

I see this as more an elite credentialed class issue, which agrees with Loungo’s technocratic communist ruling class idea. And lots of Woke Ideology, basically a religion, driving this. And it’s being pushed in the school system brainwashing the masses.

Expand full comment