Written by Jeff Nielson Friday, 11 April 2014 13:14
Many analysts outside the mainstream herd have been making dire predictions about the collapse of the economies of the Western bloc for the past several years, myself included. Those predictions have not come to pass. Does this mean that we were wrong, or at best woefully premature in our thinking? Simply, no.
Analysis (and prediction) is based upon the rational assessment of data. It is (or at least is supposed to be) a purely logical extrapolation based upon existing trends and parameters. Part of this “rational assessment” is the presumption that the various actors and authorities in our markets and economies will respond to these trends and parameters in a rational manner.
This is not merely a reasonable basis for engaging in analysis, it is the only basis. The only option to expecting rational behavior from these various participants would be to expect irrational/arbitrary behavior. However, by definition, irrational/arbitrary behavior is unpredictable. Thus such an approach is no longer “analysis” at all. It devolves into a mere guessing-game.
So we expect rational behavior and rational responses to various economic/market stimuli because we have no other choice, and when we don’t see such behavior this inevitably skews all analysis based on such rational expectations. What is important to note, however, is that irrational/arbitrary behavior (and thinking) does not invalidate such rational assessments and predictions – at least not those based upon Big Picture trends/parameters – it merely alters the time-horizon.
These Big Picture trends are the economic equivalent of the proverbial “irresistible force”, because boiled-down, they are nothing but manifestations of simple arithmetic. Any nation which chooses the (suicidal) economic policy of permanent deficits will default on its debts; it’s just simple arithmetic (i.e. compounding interest on that debt). Any nation which allows its money-printing to spiral higher will produce hyperinflation, it’s just simple arithmetic (if you keep adding water to the lemonade, you will dilute the lemonade).
The purpose of this piece is thus not to defend (no-brainer) predictions which must come true, just as certainly as “2 + 2” will always equal four. Rather, the purpose of this piece is to identify the factors which have prevented these predictions from being validated (so far), and to alert readers to the grave danger of assuming that this slow-motion collapse of Western economies will continue at the same rate.
If there is one thing we have learned with our Wonderland Matrix, it is that the puppet-masters of the One Bank are seemingly “masters of illusion.” But such a conclusion gives these bankers (and their servants in government and the media) far too much credit.
Framed more negatively; we have populations of Sheep across the Western world who have been rendered so myopic through the saturation brainwashing of Western media that they would not “see” a brick wall directly in front of their own eyes – unless/until they were first told to look for it. The proof is in the numbers, the numbers from the real world.
It would be impossible for any of the Sheep to believe the lies of “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the U.S. economy, if they simply saw with their own eyes that there are less people working in the U.S. economy each month.
It would be impossible for any of the Sheep to believe the lies that “inflation is too low”, if they simply saw with their own eyes the hyperinflationary spiral of U.S. money-printing (and money-printing across the Western world).
Written by Jeff Nielson Monday, 07 April 2014 14:40
History tells us that when governments become excessively oppressive and/or descend into saturation corruption (like the rancid regimes of the Western bloc), that such scenarios rarely “end well” – i.e. a peaceful transition back to responsible, legitimate government. Instead, the peasants/serfs/workers are nearly always driven to a state of desperation (generally near-starvation) before they finally pull out their pitchforks and guillotines, and take back their own government.
Obviously, then, the goal of commentators such as myself and other truth-tellers today is to try to reach a large percentage of our own “peasants”, the Sheep who are currently passively lapping-up the daily fiction from our Corporate media propaganda machine, before they devolve to such a state of poverty/desperation. Then once honestly informed, the presumption is that this knowledge would then power peaceful and orderly change via the ballot box.
In turn, we have seen the response of the One Bank to such messages: my own work has been systematically censored from any/all mainstream outlets, and many other alternative “voices” have also been snuffed-out one way or another. But this is only half of the One Bank’s campaign to ensure that the peasants of the United States (in particular) are never well-informed as they head to the ballot-box each election to vote for one half or the other of its own, two-headed political hydra.
The other half of this systematic process for destroying the remnants of U.S. democracy has been to give the very-wealthy literally unlimited powers to buy the government of their choice. The first “victory” in the absolute corruption of the U.S. political process was to allow corporations (the paper fronts for the very-wealthy) to donate unlimited quantities of their dirty money, in order to buy the politicians who would serve them loyally.
This also allowed the wealthiest Oligarchs to hide behind these corporate fronts, so we couldn’t see which particular individuals were primarily responsible for the latest crop of corrupt sycophants in the U.S. Congress. However, with the corruption (and now overt fascism) of the Fourth Reich becoming more extreme by the day; the Oligarchs no longer see any need to hide.
Thus we have the “next evolution” in U.S. corruption: simply allowing individuals to directly spend as much as they want in buying the government of their choice. Supposedly, there are still limitations. Wealthy Americans can only contribute so much directly to any one particular candidate or “PAC”.
For readers outside the U.S.; a PAC is basically a corporate front created solely for the purpose of broadcasting (at maximum decibels) a particular propaganda message during an election campaign. The joke in these supposed “limitations” is two-fold. While the very-wealthy are limited in their contributions to any particular entity, there are now no aggregate “caps” of any kind on such spending. They can now create an infinite number of “PAC’s” to brainwash the electorate with their message(s) in each-and-every (so-called) election.
The other, obvious joke is that with no aggregate spending caps on corporations, either, individuals can indirectly make unlimited donations to particular candidates through simply contributing via numerous corporate fronts. A billionaire with his/her own plethora of shell corporations can funnel vast (and essentially unlimited) quantities of wealth anywhere they desire in U.S. elections by simply – and legally -- utilizing all of these various, corporate tentacles.