Tag: George Soros (page 1 of 3)

What National Review Gets Wrong About the Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs

Via The Daily Bell

Alright, libertarians, you wanted drug legalization, right? Well, with opioids, via loose prescriptions, you got it, and what’s happened? We are in the middle of the worst epidemic of overdose and addiction this country has ever seen, thousands are dropping like flies, and it appears that things will be getting worse before they get better. Your theories might sound nice when you don’t have skin in the game, but when reality intrudes on your fantasies of a free society, real people pay the price. Right?

Well, not quite.

The above argument might sound familiar because a variation of it is trotted out during every national crisis. Be it war, financial instability, poverty, during health insurance debates, or any other crisis or threat, a chorus rises to blame supporters of a free society for their juvenile dogmatism that is surely causing the very predicament everyone is suffering under.

“There are no libertarians in financial crises,” gloated mainstream financial analysts during the subprime meltdown, which was caused by “free market fundamentalists”, according to George Soros.

The opioid crisis is no different, but one would have thought the fingers would have pointed at libertarians far earlier. This may be partially due to the fact that support for ending the Drug War occupies a strange grey area between Left and Right. More traditional, law-and-order type conservatives generally support the War on Drugs, as well as the tough-on-crime tactics used to prosecute it, while the Left tends to support ending the Drug War due to its violation of civil liberties.

This has always seemed strange to me since conservatives tend to support more freedom as opposed to less, smaller government as opposed to big, and the Left tends to always and everywhere support greater restriction of liberty for the ostensible benefit of, well, someone, somewhere, and a large, intrusive government to do it. But, during a crisis, regardless of Left or Right, voices will denounce liberty in favor of something more “responsible”. “We don’t have the luxury of being libertarians right now”, say the condescending, adult voices of reason and responsibility.

And so it is with Jonah Goldberg at National Review, who recently authored a piece against the libertarian argument for full drug legalization, essentially stating that an opioid-addicted dystopia would be the inevitable future of a libertarian society, with heroin sold on the shelf right next to Johnny Walker, loaves of bread, and the morning paper.

In Goldberg’s piece, “The Opioid Crisis Should Make Libertarians Rethink the Drug Legalization Argument”, he sees the opioid crisis as an experiment in drug legalization. He then looks at the outcome, mass overdose deaths, then finger wags libertarians for their blind devotion to ideology.

David French had a similar take on the crisis in a piece back in April, “The Opioid Crisis Should Kill the Call to Legalize Hard Drugs”. He sees an opioid crisis and blames “drug libertarianism”.

Forgive me, but the libertarian argument for full legalization is a bit more nuanced than that.

Libertarians understand full well the dangers that hard drugs pose for society at large, but this is the very reason for their support for full legalization. Far from wanting anyone and their children to get their hands on heroin, they understand that drug prohibition itself has been the cause of the widespread use of these hard drugs.

Richard Cowen’s 1986 article, “How the Narcs Created Crack”, illustrates the “Iron Law of Prohibition”, which essentially states that the harder the crackdown on drugs, the harder the drugs become. There was no national conversation about heroin, meth, or crack-cocaine during the late 70s because there was no epidemic associated with these drugs. It was only once a militarized crackdown on marijuana and cocaine really got underway that black market entrepreneurs developed and sold the economic equivalent of bathtub gin that these hard drugs became a problem.

In my home state of Oklahoma, where meth use is rampant, law enforcement effectively eliminated the mom-and-pop labs that produced meth locally. But meth use still increased, and overdoses increased. What explains this? The Mexican drug cartels moved in, bringing their high potency meth, produced south of the border in super labs, and began supplying the demand. Oklahoma law enforcement unwittingly invited the cartels into this state, and are effectively the chief enforcers of their market share.

There is now a push by the Oklahoma AG to treat opioid manufacturers like organized crime through the use of the RICO law, but it only takes just a little imagination to understand that this would only benefit real organized crime.

The solution to the opioid epidemic isn’t to abandon the philosophy of liberty and opt for a renewed Drug War, but to develop a non-opioid based painkiller and make it widely available to patients and addicts. Cannabis appears to be the chief contender for this role, as it has been shown that addicts can be successfully weaned off their deadly poisons through the use of marijuana. And when given the choice, pain patients overwhelmingly prefer marijuana to opioids. So what’s the hold-up?

Prescribing heroin to those most susceptible to addiction, pain sufferers, should be an idea tossed in the dustbin, but the corollary policy doesn’t lie in the simplistic “let’s fight a war!” mindset. Simple-minded prohibition brought us to this precipice, it cannot bring us out. An amped-up, militarized war on prescription opioids will lead to an unprecedented plague of black market heroin, laced with fentanyl, elephant tranquilizers, and God knows what else.

The situation, then, will truly be out of control. The Cartel presence in the U.S. will become massive, and ubiquitous, as black market heroin profits will soar, corrupting law enforcement, the political class, and everyone standing to cash in. The United States will then truly become a Narco State.

Periods of national crisis are the true test of defenders of liberty and are the very times to defend the philosophy of liberty most vigorously, because it’s this philosophy that will lead the way out.

http://WarMachines.com

How America’s Deep State Operates To Control The Message

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

It is not possible to overstate the power of certain constituencies and corporate lobbies in the United States.

These pressure groups, joined by powerful government agencies, many of which have secret agendas that focus on national security, constitute what is increasingly being recognized as “Deep State America.” Deep State is the widespread belief that there exists in many countries an entrenched and largely hidden infrastructure that really controls the national narrative and runs things. It explains why, for example, a country like the United States is perpetually at war even though the wars have been disastrous failures ever since Korea and have not made the nation more secure.

To be sure, certain constituencies have benefitted from global instability and conflict, to include defense industries, big government in general, and the national security state. They all work together and hand-in-hand with the corporate media to sustain the narrative that the United States is perpetually under threat, even though it is not.

The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. American President Donald Trump briefly met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. Putin reportedly told Trump that Russia “absolutely had not meddled” in the 2016 US election and Trump then told reporters that he believed the Russian leader meant what he said, “which is good.” As détente with Russia is not considered desirable by the Deep State, there was an immediate explosion of a contrary narrative, namely that Trump believes a Russian “enemy” and does not trust what his own intelligence agencies have told him about 2016 because he is being "played" by Putin.

This story was repeated both on television news and in all the mainstream newspapers without exception, eventually forcing Trump to recant and say that he does believe in US intelligence.

Not a single major media outlet in the US reported that it just might be possible that Putin was telling the truth and that the intelligence community, which has been wrong many times over the past twenty years, might have to look again at what it considers to be evidence. No journalist had the courage to point out that the claims of the Washington national security team have been remarkably devoid of anything credible to support the conclusions about what the Russian government might or might not have been up to. That is what a good journalist is supposed to do and it has nothing to do with whether or not one admires or loathes either Putin or Trump.

That the relationship between Moscow and Washington should be regarded as important given the capability of either country to incinerate the planet would appear to be a given, but the Washington-New York Establishment, which is euphemism for Deep State, is actually more concerned with maintaining its own power by marginalizing Donald Trump and maintaining the perception that Vladimir Putin is the enemy head of state of a Russia that is out to cripple American democracy.

Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were “guilty” of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be “useful idiots” for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents.

Driven by Russophobia over the 2016 election, a group of leading social media corporations including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter have been experimenting with ways to self-censor their product to keep out foreign generated or “hate” content.

They even have a label for it: "cyberhate". Congress is also toying with legislation that will make certain viewpoints unacceptable or even illegal, including a so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that would potentially penalize anyone who criticizes Israel and could serve as a model for banning other undesirable speech. “Defamatory speech” could even eventually include any criticism of the government or political leaders, as is now the case in Turkey, which is the country where the “Deep State” was invented.

http://WarMachines.com

“Beyond Resistance” – Soros, Pelosi Headline Left’s Biggest Dark Money Conference

Authored by Brent Scher and Joe Schoffstall via FreeBeacon.com,

A secretive three-day conference where big money liberal donors are plotting the next steps of the "resistance" will be headlined by Friday speeches by billionaire George Soros and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, according to internal documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Democracy Alliance, a donor club of deep-pocketed liberal donors that each pledge to direct hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to approved left-wing groups, descended on California's posh La Costa Resort on Wednesday morning for its fall donor summit. The group continued its tradition of secrecy, promising all members and guests of the summit their participation would "remain confidential."

The first page of the conference agenda, which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and can be viewed in its entirety below, lays out "participation guidelines," explaining that the Democracy Alliance is a "safe place" for donors and activists to meet.

Guests are instructed not to share members' names with the press and not to post to any social media sites, to contact Democracy Alliance if "the media or a blogger" contacts them, and to "refrain from leaving sensitive materials out where others may find them."

This latter directive was ignored.

The agenda for the meeting, titled "Beyond #Resistance: Reclaiming our Progressive Future," lays out three full days of events culminating in a Friday night dinner headlined by Pelosi.

A few hours earlier guests can attend "A Talk with George Soros," who will be introduced with a "special videotaped message" by Democratic senator Kamala Harris (Calif.).

All of the events are scheduled to take place at the La Costa Resort, which features 17 tennis courts of both clay and hard surfaces including one with 1,000 seats for spectators, 36 holes of golf on the Legends Course and the Champions Course, an array of pools including three hot tubs that overlook said golf courses, a spa building, and the Deepak Chopra Center, where guests can do yoga or receive mind-body medical consultations.

Pelosi and Harris are not the only two politicians to have a presence at the swanky conference – Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf (D.) held a Thursday event on his reelection efforts, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) will speak on Friday about "Russian interference in the 2016 election," and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D., Minn.), who chairs the DCCC, will attend a "festive brunch" on Saturday morning. Also making a "special appearance" on Friday will be Virginia's governor-elect Ralph Northam.

The agenda also lists "special guests" at the conference, some more famous than others. Attendees showcased in the agenda range from failed California politician Sandra Fluke to liberal CNN contributor Van Jones to Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden.

Jones was headlining a Thursday dinner on "going outside the bubble" and learning from Trump voters.

Not all events and prominent guests are listed in the conference agenda.

Not listed, for example, was a Thursday night happy hour hosted by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who was spotted in attendance.

Also not listed as a special guest at the conference was David Brock, who checked in early Wednesday afternoon and has made himself highly visible at La Costa – slowly strolling around the sprawling property and staying up at the hotel bar till past midnight.

Brock is not a "partner" of Democracy Alliance – in fact, he has worked to create his own liberal donor network – but groups he controls, such as Media Matters for America, are among the many groups Democracy Alliance directs funding to.

Not listed in the agenda or spotted at the resort has been billionaire Tom Steyer, one of Democracy Alliance's most prominent members in the past. Pelosi publicly reprimanded Steyer earlier this month for running a $10 million ad calling for President Trump's impeachment.

Also not listed in the Democracy Alliance program was a meeting held by Patriotic Millionaires, who gave a Thursday morning briefing on the "tax fight" and "what is at stake." The briefing was delivered by Larry Mishel of Americans for Tax Fairness, Thea Lee of Economic Policy Institute, and Jacob Leibenluft, a member of the Obama administration's National Economic Council who is now with the Centeron Budget and Policy Priorities.

Not all meetings at the conference are open to all guests. Some meetings are "by invitation only," "for prospective partners only," or for "partners only."

Right before Pelosi's speech, for example, will be a "Partners only" forum dedicated to "committing resources."

The Democracy Alliance has never made its commitment decisions available to the public.

Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche wrote in a letter to attendees included in the agenda that President Trump's November victory was "the most cataclysmic election of modern history."

http://WarMachines.com

“Russian Interference” Now Being Blamed For Swaying Vote In Favor Of Brexit

Was Brexit also Putin’s fault?

The simmering anti-Russia hysteria that has emerged in the UK recently has finally boiled over, and it appears last night’s story in the        Times of London claiming that a swarm of Twitter bots reportedly created by a troll farm possibly linked to Russian intelligene (sound familiar?) posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in 48 hours during last year’s referendum to try and “so discord” among the public was the grain of rice that tipped the scale.

Details that will sound familiar to anybody who’s been following the ongoing hysteria surrounding the multiple investigations into Russian influence in the US election, the suspicious twitter accounts shared messages that promoted both the ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ campaigns, purportedly a “sophisticated” ploy to confuse and bewilder voters.

Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division.

 

“This is the most significant evidence yet of interference by Russian-backed social media accounts around the Brexit referendum,” said Damian Collins, the Tory MP who chairs the digital, culture, media and sport select committee.

 

“The content published and promoted by these accounts is clearly designed to increase tensions throughout the country and undermine our democratic process. I fear that this may well be just the tip of the iceberg."

According to the Times, more than 150,000 accounts based in Russia, which had previously confined their posts to subjects such as the Ukrainian conflict, switched attention to Brexit in the days leading up to last year’s vote, according to research for an upcoming paper by data scientists at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley.

In other words, after months of tweeting about pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, these bots started firing off messages amplifying the voice of the ‘Leave’ campaign into the void.

The researchers said Russian activity spiked on June 23, the day of the referendum, and on June 24 when the result was announced. From posting fewer than 1,000 tweets a day before June 13, the suspicious accounts posted 39,000 tweets on June 24 before dropping off almost entirely.

The Swansea and Berkeley paper says that a “massive number of Russian-related tweets was created a few days before the voting day, reached its peak during the voting and the result and then dropped immediately afterwards”. Tho Pham, one of the paper’s authors, said that “the main conclusion is that bots were used on purpose and had influence”.

Of course, the Times report neglected to explain the Swansea researchers methodology. Facebook, Twitter and Google used the inadequate standard of having one’s browser language set to Russian. It’s unclear whether these researchers something that, like browser language, can be easily changed or mimicked by other groups.

On Monday, Theresa May accused Moscow of using fake news to “sow discord” and of meddling directly in elections. Her remarks followed a brief, impromptu meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an Asian economic summit in Vietnam.

In what appeared to be an attempt to deflect attention away from a challenge to her leadership, UK Prime Minister Theresa May blasted Russia Monday evening, using her speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet to accuse them of interfering in foreign elections.

May accused Moscow of attempting to "weaponize information" as part of a "sustained campaign of cyberespionage and disruption." Russia's actions were "threatening the international order," she said.

"We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of Western nations to the alliances that bind us," May said.

May listed off a litany of ills she ascribed to Russia since its annexation of Crimea, including fomenting conflict in eastern Ukraine, violating the airspace of European countries, and hacking the Danish ministry of defense and the German Parliament. Russia has also been accused of interfering in elections in the US, the Brexit referendum in the UK, and the independence vote in Catalonia.

Following May’s speech, reports emerged that individuals working on behalf of the Kremlin tried to set up meetings with conservative MPs, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

Last night, one of the UK's cyber-defense chiefs adding to the anti-Russia sentiment by accusing Russian intelligence of attacking Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.

Ciaran Martin, chief executive of GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), echoed May’s claim that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system."

Of course, there were at least two prominent British polls who decided to question the dubious accusations of interference.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to “see more evidence” that Russia is trying to undermine Western democracy, his spokesman said Wednesday.

And of course, as we noted yesterday, Nigel Farage pointed out during a speech at the European Parliament that financier George Soros has spent billions of dollars to push his political agenda across Europe, the US and the UK.

“How many of you have taken money from Open Society?” He asked his peers, referring to Soros’s Open Society foundation.

While the Russian hysteria has been raging for a year in the US now, in the UK, it’s only just beginning. In time, we will see of May’s government will continue to use Vladimir Putin as a boogeyman on which they can blame their failure to successfully negotiate amenable Brexit terms for the UK.

http://WarMachines.com

Why We’re Buying Physical Gold with a $1700 Target

originally on marketslant.com

For What it is Worth: We are buying Gold in our small family fund. This is a trade, not an investment. Potentially a much longer term trade for us than normal, possibly a 12 month hold as opposed to our 3 day positions. We are buying physical in quantities that will not need to be sold if we are wrong, thus no leverage. We will also be swing trading gold with an upward bias as our indicators dictate below $1260 or above $1306.

Target  picking is risky in an asset whose value is largely based on sentiment and prone to being “jawboned” into its proper place. But we believe for various reasons that if Gold does not pierce $1260 spot, its chances of a rally topping between $1450 and $1700 are strong over the next 12-18 months. The wide target range reflects the emotional factor in Gold’s behavior far outweighing supply, production costs, and its lack of fundamentals to measure using tools like EBITDA, PE, and cash flows. And our own analysis is corroborated from several different disciplines from whom we did not seek out to rationalize. It’s a trade, that’s all. But it’s a very good and very rare risk reward trade. it has set up right now. Further, it will either be violently and decisively confirmed (or negated) above $1306 or below $1260.

Why are we sharing this? That same question should be asked of Ray Dalio, Jeff Gundlach and others who announce they are bullish on Gold after they have  bought. Our own position is not relevant to the market overall and we do not need to market our tiny positions to create an exit strategy a la George Soros.  The premise for the trade happens so rarely its worth writing about, if for no other reason as an exercise in outsourcing our self-discipline on the trade. 

Vince Lanci for SKG

vlanci@echobay.com 

Here is how  we came to be this way.

Step 1: Volatility is Coiling

When trading short term periods, intraday and intraweek, we use a volatility system for alerts to incipient movement. We risk 1 to make 2 and move  on when wrong. It works about 50% of the time. it is net profitable. And best of all, positions that are in limbo are closed expeditiously. This is after all a volatility system. No vol, no position. It’s been cited here many times in the past. When it is right, it is very right. when it is wrong, you are out. Past posts and a 25 year track record of use bear this out from our active days.  The bottom of this post goes into more detail on its use.

What we never did at Echobay or its predecessor fund CIS Energy, was use it on long term charts. We certainly looked at them, but only for bias in shorter term trades.  Last month we took a serious look at our VBS algorithm on a monthly chart. Here is what we found:

Updated from : Gold Macro Analysis: A November to Remember

Gold has a  tremendous risk reward setting up above $1306 or below $1260….. which way from there is not known but can be handicapped once either number is breached

for a nexplanation of VBS see bottom Appendix

Step 2: How Equity Funds Play Gold

Portfolio managers at large equity funds who have contributed here anonymously use systems that advise them when being in cash as opposed to long stocks is prudent. What is also known is that funds like these  punt gold positions with their discretionary in-house money for fun.

They use similar systems for entry and exit, and never risk much in their positions. Gold is a hobby to these guys. As a result, they like to buy and walk away with long term trade orientations and firm stops. This means using long  term moving averages to avoid noise. We know this is true.  And here is an example of how that type of positions is implemented:

 In a recent interview a vocal critic of the Gold industry explained why he was buying Gold

…Gold is poised to close above its 12-month moving average for the second straight month. Going back to 1970, the average monthly return for gold following a close above the 12-month moving average is 1.47%. The average monthly return following a close below the 12-month moving average is -0.15%.

If you used the simplest of trend-following methods, investing in gold when it was above its 12-month moving average, and going to cash when it is below, the results would have been far better than just buying and holding gold. He continues:

The chart below shows when you would have been invested in gold and when you would have been out. Granted, prior to GLD, this could only have been done with futures contracts, or gold bullion, with the former adding a degree of leverage that I would not have been comfortable with, and the latter adding a degree of paranoia that also would have made me uncomfortable.

Full post : Vocal Critic Explains Why He is Buying Gold

About Physical vs. ETF: While we agree with the rationale behind GLD vs futures if you are trading and not investing, we feel for multiple reasons the physical gold market is going to open up and become a serious competitor to ETF allocations within 12 months. Specifically, blockchain products are coming,  and if properly implemented as a pipeline, owning physical gold not held in trust by a GLD custodian will be as easy as clicking a mouse. You will buy and sell physical Gold that will be yours and verified via the blockchain system.

So for us, physical gold now has the benefit of increased  liquidity on the horizon, which means increased transactions and exposure. Which ultimately means decentralization of the Gold market from a few large firms to grass roots stackers, owners, and value preservers. We view emerging technologies as putting physical assets in a position to  have their true value unlocked. Whether that be the tea farmer in India who can’t currently get a loan on his land due to government rules, to Silver whose value is somewhat disconnected from its  price. The effect will not be unlike when a private company goes public. Accessibility and liquidity creates safety and increases demand. Owning physical metals is like owning a beneficiary of technology down the road.

Monthly Chart Through July 2017 using the 12 Month MA described above

 

Step 3: Optimizing the Simple 12 month MA Tool

by optimizing the MA with one factor we back tested greater successes when in trades. Conversely, we were also in less trades. On balance it was a wash. But right now the employed filter says the 12 Month MA has bigger upside than the average if profitable at all. A rare chance to buy close to the level the fund punters did with a statistical chance of greater profits than the  1.47% monthly average  generated by the original backtest.

Updated and Optimized by the Author

 

The chart below shows the hypothetical results from each of the 30 exits following an entry (going back to 1970). Using these rules would have resulted in a loss two-thirds of the time. But as you can see, the losses have been relatively shallow, not exceeding 10%, while the gains have been good to extraordinary.

Step 4: Using VBS for Confirmation of Direction

Simply put: If we get a VBS signal trigger when $1306 trades, a decision must be made to add, sell, or hold based on the data that comes with the signal. If we get one on a $1260 print, the same must be assessed. 

 

Step 5: Actions

  1. We are buying Gold now based on the “Fund Finder” signal with a monthly stop out below the yellow line in that chart above.
  2. $1306- we will consider adding a shorter term amount in a rally if the monthly VBS is triggered higher
  3. $1260-  we will consider either adding physical, or selling paper Gold for swing trading purposes if the VBS is triggered lower.
  4. Per #1- we will close or hedge the first physical purchased on a monthly settlement below $1244 – the wide berth on monthly exits necessitates no leverage 

 

Bonus: Moor Analytics comes to a similar conclusion from a different perspective.

Moor Analytics: Gold Downside May Finally be Exhausted

Within the overall bearishness I noted that a possible area of exhaustion for this move down from 13624 comes in at 12732-644.  We basically held this, but with a $1.6 violation, and rallied to 13084 before rolling over and rejecting from it again (although this time down the 12628 was simply support, not exhaustion)

And Michael’s most recent weekly report of Nov. 10th

Via Moor Analytics:

I would note that we broke above a well-formed macro line in the week of 8/7 that came in at 12629. The
break above here projects this upward $183 minimum, $501 (+) maximum—the maximum to be attained likely within 9-12
months. This line comes in at 12357 today. I am late to the game on this, but we were only $18 from the original breakout
when I mentioned this, and have a lot of room to go in the projection.

 

Appendix

 

What is VBS?

  • Volatility Based Risk Reward Generator

+ Originally developed as an alert to when the risk of being short implied volatility is larger than being long it, and vice-versa
+ It is a probability model that handicaps risk reward
+ As a by-product of its original purpose, it gives risk/reward scenarios in market direction. 
+ Due to its accuracy in predicting volatility expansion, directional applications are right or wrong quickly and is very useful in efficient use of capital

 

How VBS Works

  • Time is precious, Price is noisy, Volatility is less so.

+Volatility is less noisy than price, therefore more reliable as an indicator. 
+Volatility cycles more cleanly and  can be seen to “inhale and exhale” when viewed graphically with Bollinger Bands
+VBS is based on several relationships between historical and implied volatility  across different time frames
+ It can  be applied by traders on any time frame

 

VBS and Direction

  • It doesn’t predict price, only speed of movement

+It gives non-directional alerts and was initially developed for optimizing option portfolio risk.
+While not predictive directionally, VBS gives as a by-product excellent risk-reward setups for directional plays

 

VBS Process

  • Radar, Alert, Trigger, Entry, Exit
  1. Radar- VBS generates 2 prices, one above and one below current prices for a “breakout” in market volatility 
  2. Alert- One of the prices is breached and closes its bar/ candle beyond that price level.
  3. Trigger- Real volatility will expand
    • Market direction does not have to continue in the direction the price in #1 was broken
    • volatility based risk- reward prices are generated for directional use. I.E. Risk 1 to make 2
  4. Entry- using the  VBS risk/ reward generated levels, a decision is made to either go with the directional trend, against it, or do nothing
    • The trigger gives 2 bites at the apple if the trader so desires.
    • In “first way, wrong way” scenarios reversal levels are generated (N.B.- our preference is to not play the reversal and have left money on the table in favor of the trauma of being “chopped up”. if compelling, we have used options to remain in the game on reversals)
  5. Exit- is either from a stop-out, a profit capture, or a time limit
    •  Stop-Loss- are generated by VBS and adhered to religiously. Profitable trades trail stops higher based on expanding volatility
    • Profits- exits can be subjective, we prefer taking 90% of position at target and leaving a tail if the VBS is not signalling Vol is overbought
    • Time Exit- trades  that are neither profitable  nor stopped out are exited  in 3 bars/ candles. The signal is designed for quick confirmation / rejection of the trigger

Good Luck

http://WarMachines.com

Nigel Farage Calls On EU To Investigate George Soros

The anti-Russia hysteria that has raged in the US for just over a year now appeared poised to spread to the UK last week after British media learned that three past or present Foreign Office ministers – including Boris Johnson – had been targeted by FBI agents in their investigations into George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The reports aroused suspicions that the ‘Leave’ campaign may have taken money indirectly from the Russian government. Of course, the idea that Russian efforts – part of a three-dimensional Russian plot to diminish the UK’s international influence – managed to sway the vote in favor of Brexit is just as ludicrous as the notion that $100,000 in Facebook promoted posts managed to throw the election to Trump.

And as if to underscore this point, Nigel Farage delivered a speech at the European Parliament – where he represents South East England – pointing out that George Soros’ Open Society Foundation has far more influence on elections across the Europe and the US. And if investigators are looking for evidence of foreign influence, they should start there. After all, George Soros recently signed over most of his assets – some $18 billion worth – to his OSF, which oversees a network of dozens of organizations across Europe.

 

 

And what is this money used for? Soros’ nonprofits have one mission: To promote a globalist agenda of open borders, free trade and liberal democratic values.

Speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Farage told fellow MEPs he believes that when it comes to international collusion, “we are looking in the wrong place.” He says Soros’ influence in Brussels is “truly extraordinary,”adding: “I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history," according to Russia Today.

Farage, the leader of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group in the European Parliament, believes Soros has spent billions in the EU to undermine the nation state. “When we are talking about offshore money, when we are talking about political subversion, when we are talking about collusion, I wonder if we are looking in the wrong place.

“And I say that because George Soros recently gave Open Society, which of course campaigns for freedom of movement of people and supranational structures like the European Union, $18 billion. And his influence here and in Brussels is truly extraordinary."

Open Society says it held 42 meetings in 2016 with the European Commission, and has published lists of reliable “friends” in the European Parliament. Farage pointed out that there are 226 names on the list, he says. He told those MEPs he would be writing to them to establish whether they had accepted money or help from Soros.

“If we’re going to have a debate, and talk about full, political and financial transparency, well let’s do it.  So I shall be writing today to all 226 of you, asking some pretty fair questions: Have you ever received funds directly or indirectly from Open Society? How many of their events have you attended? Could you please give us a list of all the representatives including George Soros?”

Last week, the electoral commission opened an investigation into whether the Leave campaign took offshore money, Farage pointed out. However, in a twist that’s sure to arouse suspicion, the investigation was opened following a request in the House of Commons from a Ben Bradshaw, an affiliate of Open Society.

Finally, since authorities seem intent on investigating any Russian influence in the vote to leave the European Union, Farage demanded that the European Parliament set up a special committee to look into the issue. “I say this at a time when the use of money and the implications it may have had on the Brexit result or the Trump election has reached virtual hysteria."

Now that he has mostly retired from investing, Soros spends his days feuding with the leaders of mid-sized Eastern European states like Hungary, where he and President Viktor Orban are engaged in a PR battle over the future of a country that Orban has led further and further to the right as a surge of migrants have poured over the European border from Africa and the Middle East.
 

http://WarMachines.com

Friendly Reminder That Jeff Bezos Is Still Trying To Take Over The Universe

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Jeff Bezos, currently the wealthiest human being on planet Earth, did not purchase the Washington Post in 2013 because he was expecting newspapers to make a lucrative resurgence.

This self-evident fact doesn’t receive enough attention.

I will say it again for emphasis: Jeff Bezos, who has used his business prowess to become the wealthiest person in the world, did not purchase the Washington Post in 2013 because he was expecting newspapers to make a profitable comeback. That did not happen.

What did happen is the world’s richest plutocrat realizing that he needed a mouthpiece to manufacture public support for the neoliberal corporatist establishment that he is building his empire upon. This is why WaPo ran sixteen smear pieces on Bernie Sanders in the span of sixteen hours at the hottest point in the Democratic presidential primary battle. It is also why it continues to publish filth like this:

Last year Silicon Valley venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya said that Amazon is “a multi-trillion-dollar monopoly hiding in plain sight.” In June Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, wrote that Amazon is trying to “control the underlying infrastructure of the economy.”

Bezos continues to get cozier and cozier with the US power establishment as his empire metastasizes across human civilization. He kicked WikiLeaks off Amazon servers in 2010, he scored a 600 million dollar contract with the CIA in 2013, he joined a Pentagon advisory board in 2016, he hung out with Defense Secretary James Mattis in August, and he’s spent nearly ten million dollars this year lobbying the federal government, which is likely what led to an NDAA amendment gifting Amazon a $54 billion market it’s expected to dominate as a supplier to the Pentagon.

A pleasure to host #SecDef James Mattis at Amazon HQ in Seattle today pic.twitter.com/JnQZoSOnFN

— Jeff Bezos (@JeffBezos) August 10, 2017

Billion. With a ‘b’.

The Intercept reports that attempts to scale back the amendment by anti-monopolists have led to some adjustments, but to little real effect.

“This amendment looks like it will crown Amazon as an official gatekeeper to government procurement,” said Lina Khan of the Open Markets Institute.

 

“Government spending that was previously dispersed across hundreds of distinct companies will now instead all be channeled through one company, with Amazon collecting a tax.”

Meanwhile Democrats are fixated on the Koch brothers and Republicans are focused on George Soros.

I gave this story a jokey headline, but seriously, watch Jeff Bezos very closely.

Your future is increasingly more likely to be imperiled by new money tech plutocrats like him than by old money plutocrats like Soros and the Rothschilds.

The power dynamics of the plutocracy is shifting as the world changes at breakneck pace, and people need to be able to keep adjusting the way they think about things to keep up. A lot of folks in conspiracy circles are still talking about deep state power structures like it’s 2004, and meanwhile those power structures are all prepping for a tech explosion, monetary revolutions, vast shifts in the global economy and the end of oil.

These changes are already well underway. Let’s get our brainpower focused on the present.

The richest man in the world did not purchase the Washington Post because he believed newspapers were about to enjoy a lucrative resurgence, and he certainly didn’t purchase it to ensure the production of high quality journalism. He bought it so that he’d have a trusted mouthpiece through which to lie to you about what is happening in the world in a way that will benefit his empire. 

*  *  *

Hey you, thanks for reading! My work is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, and maybe throwing some money into my hat on Patreon.

http://WarMachines.com

George Soros To Congress: “Please Don’t Cut My Taxes”

After transferring over the bulk of his personal wealth to his “Open Society” Foundation – the umbrella organization for a network of dozens of political groups that push Soros’s far-left agenda across the US and Europe, Soros is still comfortable enough to justify giving away even more of his money – this time to the US federal government.

Taking a page out of Warren Buffett's book, Soros and a group of some 400 other rich Americans – including doctors, lawyers and CEOs – are sending a formal letter to Congress chiding lawmakers for trying to reduce taxes on the richest American families at a time when wealth inequality is rapidly expanding. Instead, the letter asks Congress not to pass any tax bill that “further exacerbates inequality” and adds to the debt (both of the current Republican plans would add $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years).

The letter was penned by Responsible Wealth, a group of “enlightened” rich people that includes Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, fashion designer Eileen Fisher and philanthropist Steven Rockefeller, in addition to Soros. Along with the big names are many individuals and couples who rank among the top 5% of Americans (those who have $1.5 million in assets or earn $250,000 or more a year).

In a rebuttal to Congress’s argument that corporate tax cuts will help stimulate growth, the letter argues that corporations are already reaping record profits. Instead of handing more money to the wealthy, the letter’s signers argue the government should use the funds to invest in education, research and roads that benefit everyone, while protecting entitlement programs like Medicaid.

In the letter, Congress’s push to repeal the estate tax was singled out for criticism. The tax, is only levied on assets worth more than $5.49 million ($11 million for couples) that are left to heirs. The House bill would eliminate the estate tax entirely. The Senate plan would double the threshold so people could inherit up to $11 million ($22 million for couples) tax free.

Only 5,000 families a year end up paying the estate tax. Under the Senate plan, that would drop to just 1,800 families, according to a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official nonpartisan estimators.

“Repealing the estate tax alone would lose an estimated $269 billion over 10 years — more than we would spend on the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and Environmental Protection Agency combined,” the letter said.

Bob Crandall, a former American Airlines CEO, told the Post “I think a tax cut is absurd,” he said. Republicans are “saying we can’t afford to spend money, but we can afford to give rich people a huge tax break.”

Unsurprisingly, most of the signers of the letter come from California, New York and Massachusetts – states that went for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the last election. Former labor secretary Robert Reich, a backer of Bernie Sanders, also signed the letter. The campaign was organized by Responsible Wealth in partnership with Voices for Progress, another liberal organization.

One of the letter’s signers, a wealthy paper-mill scion from New York, pointed out the seeming absurdity in wealthy people asking Congress not to cut their taxes.

“This has to be one of the few times members of Congress have been visited by people saying, 'Don’t give me a tax cut,'" said Mike Lapham, who inherited sizable wealth from his family's paper mill in Upstate New York and now directs the Responsible Wealth project at United for a Fair Economy. "Wealthy people are saying it themselves: We don't need a tax cut."

Of course, like most political stunts of this caliber, we imagine the letter will be promptly ignored by Republicans. And many of the letter’s signers probably recognize this, too. Because if anybody believed the letter might actually influence the decision-makers in Congress, instead of serving solely as an instrument for virtue-signaling, we imagine there’d be a lot fewer rich people willing to sign.

Read the full letter below:

* * *

Dear Member of Congress:

We are high net worth individuals, many in the top 1%, who care deeply about our nation and its people, and we write with a simple request: Do not cut our taxes.

As you consider changes to the tax code, we urge you to oppose any legislation that further exacerbates inequality. Tax reform should be, at a minimum, revenue neutral—without using gimmicks like dynamic scoring. We are deeply concerned that revenue loss would lead to deep cuts in critical services such as education, Medicare and Medicaid, and would hamper our nation’s ability to restore investments in our people and communities.

The Republican tax plan would disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with provisions including repealing the estate tax, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slashing the top pass-through tax rate. This proposal would mean wealthy people could pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class families and transfer massive inheritances to their heirs tax-free. Such proposals that benefit the wealthy would exacerbate the current wealth disparity in the U.S. where the top 1% of households hold 42% of the wealth.

We believe the key to creating more good jobs and a strong economy is not tax breaks for those of us who have plenty, but investing in the American people. Our civic institutions that help people meet basic living standards and protect the climate are critical to supporting our prosperity as a nation. Yet, Congress is already shortchanging the investments needed to strengthen our economy, and the Administration and some in Congress are looking for deeper cuts. Current federal funding for non-defense discretionary spending was slashed overall by more than 13% (adjusted for inflation) over the past seven years, leaving many programs severely underfunded. While Congress should be finding ways to increase funding for these vital investments, the Republican tax plan would instead add at least $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the deficit over the next decade. This would leave us unable to meet our country’s current needs and restrict us in advancing any future investments.

A full repeal of the estate tax alone would lose an estimated $269 billion over 10 years —more than we would spend on the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and Environmental Protection Agency combined. While these critical agencies help millions of people, repealing the estate tax would benefit just two out of every 1,000 estates. It is neither wise nor just to give wealthy people more tax breaks at the expense of working families, and it would be especially egregious to fund tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting or dismantling programs that help people meet fundamental human needs like healthcare or nutrition assistance.

Instead, we call on Congress to raise our taxes to bring in additional much-needed revenue and to restore investments to vital services. Doing so will help create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and ensure America’s economic success. Under no circumstance should tax reform lose revenue, especially to provide tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations.

Respectfully,

(signers)

 

http://WarMachines.com

The End Of “The End Of History” – US Mid-East Policy’s Fork In The Road

Authored by Tom Luongo,

In 1989 Francis Fukayama declared that we had reached “The End of History.”  Democracy as a form of government would, in fact, be the end of the evolution of human interaction.  The West had triumphed and that the rest was ‘just a chase scene,’ to borrow a phrase from Neal Stephenson’s brilliant dystopian novel “Snow Crash.”

But, this past week’s events in the Middle East tell me that autocracy has replaced democracy and the trans-national parliamentary system of the European Union that Fukayama championed in his 2007 article in The Guardian.

The EU no longer practices representative Democracy today.  Diktats come down from unelected technocrats in Brussels. They are wholly-owned by stateless rent-seeking oligarchs (i.e. George Soros). Everyone in and around the EU is expected to obey or face tanks in the streets (Spain) or endless legal entanglements from captured international courts (Poland).

If you circumvent the rules, the EU will change them to suit its masters’ needs.  Just look at any proposed Russian pipeline into Europe over the past five years.

In the U.S. we have been subjected to the worst form of operant conditioning by an unelected Deep State and its quisling media for a year. They created the mass delusion that President Donald Trump is a secret Russian agent.

The goal was to overturn a democratic election, which itself the people had to overcome systemic voter fraud to win.

When, in fact, everyone who is involved in creating this mass delusion are covering up their collusion with Russia in ways that are espionage and treason.

So, consider me unimpressed with Fukayama’s assessment of history.  History is one of the praxeological disciplines.  Economics is another.  Any historical analysis bereft of economic imperatives is worthless.

And Fukayama’s end of history argument is the height of worthless history because it doesn’t ask the basic question “Cui Bono?”  Who benefits?

The End of Saudi Arabia as We Know it

Saudi Arabia has simply replaced one group of autocrats with another, Crown Prince (and soon to be King) Mohammed bin Salman.  There is not one democratic impulse in his body.  But he is the tip of the spear that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are wielding to remake the landscape in the Middle East.

Bin Salman’s moves have been stunning in their severity and swiftness.  But, if you are going to move against the most powerful people in the world, act fast or be destroyed.

There is a full-court press on to bring to light the extensive corruption of our political class from Washington to Tel Aviv, Brussels to Beirut.  And while barred from openly coordinating policy or even talk with each other, Putin and Trump are supporting each other’s moves while looking like they aren’t.

The status quo in Saudi Arabia is over.  It’s bin Salman’s country now.  Thank Putin and Trump for this.  The old alliances between it and Israel are now out in the open, creating cognitive dissonance in a whole new class of people.  It’s reach into governments around the world has been severed.

Hundreds of billions in assets frozen.  Dozens of family members jailed, many major donors to the corrupt-to-the-bone Democratic National Committee.

A major pillar of U.S. control atomized with the arrest of Prince Alaweed.

The coincidence cannot be ignored.  Everything happens in politics for a reason.

And for every pundit confused by what is happening, worried that this is a prelude to regional war I remind you that there are always multiple interpretations of the same events.  Such is the grist for history’s mill.

For example, that missile fired from Yemen at the Saudi capital conveniently had ‘proof’ of its Iranian origin.  Was this bin Salman’s false flag or someone else’s?

As Zerohedge pointed out this morning:

The narrative is familiar: just as European terrorists conveniently commit suicide and always dutifully bring along their passports so they can be identified, so Iran always makes sure it leaves identifying marks when it illegally sells its weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Lingering Questions

What if bin Salman’s purge was a reaction to a false-flag to gin up a war with Iran?

Israeli and U.S. Deep State forces have motive.  They are on the verge of losing everything? Certainly it’s as plausible as it being the opening act of bin Salman’s next foreign intervention.

Why was Donald Trump greeted by China’s leadership in a way that no foreign leader in the past 60 years was ever treated?

Could it be that despite his ham-fisted rhetoric, Premier Xi Jinping knows that Trump is, in fact, sincere in dismantling that portion of the U.S. Empire that no longer serves anyone’s interests except the very favored few who meet in Davos and Jackson Hole every year?

And that Trump will come to embrace China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative as good for the U.S. as well as the rest of the world?

Trump went out of his way to greet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vietnam at the beginning of APEC, despite intense pressure for him not to do so.  Again, why?

Is this the behavior of a man about to go to war? Be impeached?

Multiple Ways to Drain a Swamp

The path to draining the swamp is a circuitous one but, in my mind, it’s hard to argue where things are headed.  They are not headed towards confrontation with Iran but actually the opposite.

The most rabidly anti-Iranian segment of the Saudi Royal house is impoverished and imprisoned.

CNN will be sold and go out of business to allow for the Time-Warner/AT&T merger.  Jeff Zucker is out. Add another scalp to Steve Bannon’s belt along with Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and so many to come.

Will the vestiges of the neoconservative establishment in the U.S. and Israel continue to sabre-rattle and try to undermine what is happening?  Yes.

They’ve been doing that since the day Trump was elected just over a year ago, but it hasn’t stopped the momentum.  Why?  Because Putin was on the job outmaneuvering them at every turn.

Trump made a deal with the neocons back in August to cede them control of foreign policy and, in effect, outsourced cleaning up the Middle East to Putin. But, predictably they also didn’t follow through with their end of the bargain.

Trump learned, like Putin did, the John McCain’s of the world don’t keep to their deals.  They are ‘not agreement capable.’  And, as such, since the last failure to repeal Obamacare Trump has gone after every pillar of support these people had.

It will end with Hillary Clinton’s indictment.  But in the meantime it will look like the world is on the brink of world war.

And History’s Just Fine

Eventually, Saudi Arabia looked at the game board and saw that it was alone.  King Abdallah saw the changes that had to be made.  He met with Putin, they agreed on slightly-higher oil prices.  China offered to buy an Aramco stake but that would mean cutting ties completely with the U.S.

I believe that offer was a bluff.  It was meant to send bin Salman to Trump who agreed to get the Aramco IPO done in New York but he had to take control and end the royal family’s support of evil around the world.

Pat Buchanan’s latest column laments that no one listens when the U.S. barks anymore.  But, at the same time, what the U.S. is barking hasn’t been worth the air it disturbed in more than twenty years since the End of History.

This is what happens when you ‘Cry Wolf’ too many times. 

Benjamin Netanyahu is finally going to learn that lesson in the coming weeks.

The extent of bin Salman’s purge and its effects on not just the Middle East but the U.S. and the EU can only be assessed in hindsight by historians.  A future Fukayama will come along and see this and declare another end to history.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon to support further work like this as well as getting access to my Private Blog and the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter to help you profit from these immense geopolitical changes.

http://WarMachines.com

Steve Keen: How I Sold Out To The Putin-Soros-Murdoch Conspiracy To Destroy Western Civilization

Authored by Steve Keen via RT.com,

I was delighted to find myself in the Top Ten (alright; top 15) of the European Values list of 2,326 “Useful Idiots” appearing regularly on RT shows, and thus legitimizing Vladimir Putin’s attempt to destroy Western civilization as we know it.

Why delighted? Because it completes the set of conspiracies to which I can now be accused of belonging. They include:

  • The Putin Conspiracy, since I am regularly interviewed on Russia Today (and even worse, I now get paid to write for RT!);

  • The Soros Conspiracy, since my research, has been funded by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) which he established;

  • The Murdoch Conspiracy, since I appear every week on Sky News Australia with Carson Scott, and I used to get paid by News Ltd to write a weekly column; and

  • The Alt-Right Conspiracy, since I’ve signed a book contract with Vox Day’s publishing firm Castalia House.

So not only am I a “useful idiot,” I’m a useful idiot for four contradictory conspiracies. Does that make me a double-double agent?

No, it makes me someone who’s quadruple pissed off with people who attempt to understand the world from the perspective of conspiracy theories in the first place. I don’t deny the existence of conspiracies: in fact, far from it, because they’re everywhere. What I do deny is the implicit assumption that the conspirators understand the system they’re attempting to manipulate.

For example, I’ve heard plenty of conspiracy theorists assert that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the Federal Reserve/George Soros (Hi George!)/Hedge Funds/Academic-Economists-Who-Peddle-The-Efficient-Markets-Hypothesis, and “they” profited from it.

This implies “they” knew what “they” were doing. Pardon me, but I’ve met many of these protagonists – and in the case of academic economists, I’ve worked with them for 30 years. “They” don’t have a clue (except George). Even those that were actively conspiring—like many hedge funds during the subprime bubble were doing so on the basis of utterly deluded theories about how the system they were trying to game actually worked. Where apparent conspiracies did work, like Soros’s punt against the British Pound decades ago, they did so because a CSP (Clever Sinister Person) bet against the conventional wisdom of others who thought they understood the system (and did not), rather than because the CSP set up the whole thing in the first place.

Higher standards

As for the argument that I’m unwittingly playing into Vladimir Putin’s malevolent plans for Western democracy by being interviewed on RT, I have three rebuttals.

The first and most important is that RT simply has better programs and better journalists than, for example, the BBC.

I would gladly discuss issues such as what caused the 2008 economic crisis on the BBC, were I asked. But the BBC (and most other Western outlets that European Values and other conspiracy theorists think are superior to RT) just isn’t interested in the issues. With precisely two honorable exceptions, BBC programs and its journalists have only been interested in a story involving me when there was a personality angle to it.

I have been interviewed by the BBC 11 times since I arrived in the UK in mid-2014. Only two interviews were motivated by the journalist’s or program’s genuine interest in my non-orthodox approach to economics: a HARDtalk interview in August 2016, and an interview by Alice Baxter in January 2016.

Fully six were about my friend Yanis Varoufakis when he was Greece’s finance minister.

Two others were on November 3rd, 2016, about some news story that I’ve since forgotten.

And my most recent interview on the BBC, on September 14th this year to mark the 10th anniversary of the collapse of Northern Rock, was the clincher for me. That failure was the most significant financial event in the UK in almost eighty years: it was the first bank run since the Great Depression. I was pleased to be asked to discuss it on air, and I expected a serious treatment of it.

Instead, the item consisted of a two-minute introduction by one presenter, and a three-minute exchange with another which rates as one of the most vacuous interviews I’ve experienced in forty-five years of being interviewed by journalists (my first was as a 19-year-old politically active student at the University of Sydney in 1972). I did my best to answer inane questions seriously, but as one member of my Patreon community commented, you could see my answers parting the journalist’s hair. That was a cruel remark, but frankly a fair one.

BBC vacuum

Which raises the second riposte: why aren’t there shows that are interested in the in-depth analysis of economic issues on the BBC? Shows like the RT staples on which I was and continue to be interviewed regularly: Capital Account, the Boom Bust, the Keiser Report, Renegade Inc, the 7pm News with Bill Dod, and Going Underground.

It’s not because the programs were devised by dastardly Russian stooges: most of them were developed by independent broadcasters and pitched to a number of outlets. I know for a fact that at least one of these shows was pitched to the BBC before it was offered to RT. They weren’t interested, but RT was.

This isn’t because the BBC – and most Western media outlets – were too highbrow for these programs: the opposite is more the case. The BBC and its commercial rivals seem more interested in infotainment than analysis, more concerned with filling time with fancy graphics and pretty (male and female) talking torsos, than in actually getting to grips with the serious economic issues in a seriously challenging world.

The third rebuttal, which I’ll develop in more depth in a later column, is that if I can help strengthen Russia as a rival axis of power to the USA, then I think that’s a good thing. I’d rather have a bipolar (or tripolar) battle for global dominance between two (or more) Superpowers, than have a unipolar world with a single Superpower, led by a leader with a bipolar personality.

http://WarMachines.com

Soros & The Myth Of European Democracy: A Shocking Revelation

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

It’s an open secret that the “Soros network” has an extensive sphere of influence in the European Parliament and in other European Union institutions.

The list of Soros has been made public recently. The document lists 226 MEPs from all sides of political spectrum, including former President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, former Belgian PM Guy Verhofstadt, seven vice-presidents, and a number of committee heads, coordinators, and quaestors. These people promote the ideas of Soros, such as bringing in more migrants, same-sex marriages, integration of Ukraine into the EU, and countering Russia. There are 751 members of the European Parliament. It means that the Soros friends have more than one third of seats.

George Soros, a Hungarian-American investor and the founder and owner of Open Society Foundations NGO, was able to meet with President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker with “no transparent agenda for their closed-door meeting”, and pointed out how EU proposals to redistribute quotas of migrants across the EU are eerily familiar to Soros’s own self-published plan for dealing with the crisis.

The billionaire financier believes that the European Union should receive millions of immigrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa, provide each one with an annual 15,000 EUR in aid, and resettle these migrants in member-states where they do not wish to go and are not necessarily welcome.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has accused the EU of “eating out of the hand” of Soros. He believes that the billionaire open borders campaigner is behind the attacks on Hungary. The reason is the government’s attempts to take legal action over a new law which requires foreign-supported ‘civil society’ organizations — many funded by Soros — to list their big overseas donors in a public register and be transparent about their funding sources in their publications. The Hungarian government is applying efforts to close the Budapest-based Central European University founded by Soros.

“The whole of the European Union is in trouble because its leaders and bureaucrats adopt decisions like this,” said Orbán.

 

“The people support the ideal of the European Union. At the same time, they can’t stand the leadership of the EU, because it insults the Member-States with things like this, and it abuses its power. Everyone in Europe can see that. This is why the European leadership is not respected.

The Visegrad group is trying to stand tall under the EU pressure on migrants’ policy. The European Commission of Migration and Home Affairs is pushing a new bill to make migrants quotas obligatory. At least 30 Soros supporters work for the commission.

Many people listed in the document are known for attacks on Russia. For instance, Rebecca Harms, a MEP from German Green Party, regularly calls the European Parliament to toughen the sanctions regime against Moscow. Guy Verhofstadt blames Russia for almost each and every thing going wrong in Europe. His article Putting Putin in his Place made a lot of noise last year. In 2012, former Croatian Primer Tonino Picula, who was the head of an observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), slammed the Russian presidential election of 2012 as unfair, saying it was “skewed” in Vladimir Putin’s favor.

The Soros list sheds light on the question of what makes the EU leadership implement policies, which run counter to the interests of Europeans. The answer is corruption. The politicians bribed by Soros dance to his tune. They fight against the attempts of national leaders to protect the interests of their peoples. Quite often those who oppose such policies have to face the resistance of political elites of their own countries. The standoff between Hungarian PM Orbán and the Soros network is a good example to illustrate how it works. The European Parliament under the influence of Soros friends is pushing Europe to suicide by letting millions of migrants in.

It shows that the much-vaunted European democracy is a façade to hide the activities of power structure close to feudal system with local lord holding the reins. It can hardly be called the power of people. The publication of Soros list provides a clue to understanding who rules the EU and who instigates anti-Russia sentiments in Europe. Actually, this is the case when EU member countries like Hungary happen to be in the same boat with Russia opposing the very same US-based forces, while protecting their sovereignty and independence. This is the time for Europeans to think about transforming the system to do away with outside pressure.

http://WarMachines.com

“It’s A Dud” – Nationwide Soros-Funded, Antifa ‘Uprising’ To Remove Trump From Office Fails

Authored by Alex Thomas via SHTFplan.com,

Despite widespread attention in the press, the “Refuse Fascism” multi-city Antifa plan to remove Trump from office has completely failed, with protests in most cities turning out under a hundred people who were at times outnumbered by Trump supporters that had shown up to counter what the Soros-funded group had claimed would be millions of people intent on driving out the “fascist Trump/Pence regime.”

The group had spent an unknown amount of money promoting the protests, even going as far as to take out a full page ad in the New York Times. On top of that, they also received widespread attention in the mainstream media for the last week yet none of that apparently mattered when the time came to show up for the communist inspired revolution to take out the rightfully elected president.

A variety of videos of the protests across the country were posted throughout social media, most showing such a laughable turnout that one news outlet led with the headline “ANTIFAIL.”

Reports of violence were also surprising low, with the only notable exception being a women arrested for throwing her drink on a Trump supporter in New York City.

In Boston a Trump supporter posted footage of what looks to be a couple dozen people planning Trump’s demise.

Protests in Chicago were also relatively small and not even close to what the groups behind them had hoped for.

As Breitbart noted, protests in the Antifa “stronghold” of Seattle were also surprisingly small.

One protester in Seattle turned up with a Soviet flag. I can only assume that the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, all of which hate murderous totalitarian ideologies, will give it the same kind of coverage they devoted to the swastika at Charlottesville. That’s how it works, right?

What looks to be the biggest protest happened in New York City with a couple hundred people showing up. (LOL)

Infowars.com covered multiple protests across the country with over 7 hours of footage showing the complete failure of the Soros funded anti-Trump protesters.

Owen Shroyer covered the protests from Austin City Hall and reported that, “It was nationwide, they spent millions of dollars on this, they bought a full page ad in The New York Times, today rolls around and its a dud!

http://WarMachines.com

The Economic End Game Continues

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

In November of 2014 I published an article titled 'The Economic End Game Explained'. In it I outlined what I believed would be the process by which globalists would achieve what they call the "new world order" or what they sometimes call the "global economic reset."

As I have shown in great detail in the past, the globalist agenda includes a fiscal end game; a prize or trophy that they hope to obtain. This prize is a completely centralized global economic structure, rooted in a single central bank for the world, the removal of the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency, the institution of the SDR basket system which will act as a bridge for single a global currency supplanting all others and, ultimately, global governance of this system by a mere handful of "elites."

The timeline for this process is unclear, but there is some indication of when the "beginning of the end" would commence. As noted in the globalist owned magazine The Economist, in an article titled "Get Ready For The Phoenix," the year of 2018 seems to be the launching point for the great reset. This timeline is supported by the numerous measures already taken to undermine dollar dominance in international trade as well as elevate the International Monetary Fund's SDR basket. It is clear that the globalists have deadlines they intend to meet.

That said, there have been some new developments since I wrote my initial analysis on the end-game strategy that I think merit serious attention. The end game continues, faster than ever before, and here are some of the indicators showing that the "predictions" of the globalists at The Economist in 1988 were more like self-fulfilling prophecies and 2018 remains a primary nexus point for a re-engineering of our economic environment.

Using The East To Dismantle The Petrodollar

As I mentioned in last week's article, 'Lies And Distractions Surrounding The Petrodollar,' there has been silence and often disinformation in the mainstream when it comes to the quite open and obvious international pivot away from the dollar as the defacto purchasing mechanism for oil. This trend is only set to accelerate in two months as China begins fulfilling oil contracts in the Yuan instead of the dollar.

The problem is that even in the alternative media there is a continuing myth that Eastern nations are angling to "break away" from the international order. I often see the argument presented that the loss of the petrodollar can only be a good thing for the world. I am not here to comment on whether the end of oil-denominated in dollars is a good or bad thing. I am here, though, to point out that there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that major eastern powers like Russia and China are acting to undermine the existing globalist system.

On the contrary, China and Russia remain, as ever, heavily partnered with the IMF as well as the Bank for International Settlements, and their ties to international banking monoliths like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are long established.

Eastern political and economic officials have consistently called for a new reserve system supplanting the dollar, this is true. But what so many analysts seem to overlook is that they ALSO call for that new system to be dominated by the IMF.

The delusion that the financial world operates on is that the IMF is "controlled" by the U.S. It is not. It is controlled by international bankers, who have no loyalties to any specific country. Once one understands this fact, the systematic sabotage of the U.S. makes perfect sense, as well as the collusion between China, Russia and the IMF. America is a sacrificial appendage of the globalist edifice and is being torn down piece by piece in order to feed the creation of something new and perhaps even more sinister.

As George Soros proclaimed back in 2009, the "new world order" would rely in part on China as a replacement economic engine for the globalist machine and depend far less on a diminishing United States. China would serve as a smaller engine, but a replacement engine none the less.

China is more than happy to oblige the globalists with a concerted  and incremental program of de-dollerization. But this does not mean that the end-goal is a "petroyuan." No, the goal is for the IMF to assert the dominance of the SDR basket system as a reserve hub. And, China is now the flagship market for the SDR after its recent induction into the fold. There will be no single reserve currency after the dollar is brutalized. At least, not until all currencies are homogenized through the SDR basket and finally replaced with a single global currency unit. Until then, the IMF or the BIS will dictate nation-to-nation trade and monetary exchange.

It only follows that this highly-volatile rebirth of the global financial order would begin in part with the dollar's loss of petro-status. The oil trade is the one defining element that gives the dollar a fundamental edge over all other currencies. It is the closest thing we have to commodity backing for the dollar and it is an advantage no other currency in the world can yet boast. There are many ways to destroy the dollar, but the BEST method would be to end its petro-status.

The Global Currency Unit Is Already Here

One argument I used to hear often from naysayers on global currency was that there "is no monetary unit with enough liquidity to replace the dollar." Of course, these people have no understanding of the SDR basket and how it could be used to envelop and absorb most if not all currencies into a single reserve mechanism. That said, I understand the confusion. When people think of currencies, they think of physical tickets of measurement; they want to see a piece of paper with symbols, or, they want to at least see a brand name for the product, which is what all currencies really are.

When The Economist in 1988 called for a global currency to launch in 2018, they were perhaps not aware of the exact form the destructor would take. Even in 2014 I was not fully convinced we had enough evidence on what that unit of measurement would be or look like. Today, it is clear as crystal — the one world currency system will not only be a cashless system, but it will also be based on digital blockchain technology.

As I examined in my article 'The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin,' while some politicians and banking moguls publicly attack blockchain-based products like Bitcoin or Etherium, in the background they are actually heavily invested in these systems and are even building their own. With central banking mascots like Ben Bernanke becoming keynote speakers at blockchain conferences, it is not exactly an elusive secret that the global banks love blockchain tech.

Even major elitist corporations like Amazon appear ready to adopt blockchain products as currencies.  So, one needs to ask the question:  If the blockchain and Bitcoin are such a dire threat to the centralization of the establishment, why are they rapidly laying all the groundwork necessary for blockchain systems to replace paper currencies?

What is interesting to me is that even in the highly vigilant world of alternative economics, which is well aware of the trend towards a global currency system, blockchain systems are still revered as if they will save us from central bank tyranny. Very few people have noticed that The Economist call for a 2018 one world monetary framework has arrived slightly early; it has been right under our noses for several years. With blockchain-based methods of exchange, a replacement structure for the dollar and all other national currencies is not very far away.

The Federal Reserve Implosion Program Continues

I remember back before 2008 when the media almost never treated actions at the Federal Reserve as major news.  In fact, I remember back when the average American had never even heard for the Federal Reserve, and some believed the very existence of the institution was a "conspiracy theory".  Now, the nomination for the new Fed chair is at the top of the news feeds, but for all the wrong reasons.

The changing of the Fed chair is absolutely meaningless as far as policy is concerned.  Jerome Powell will continue the same exact initiatives as Yellen; stimulus will be removed, rates will be hiked and the balance sheet will be reduced, leaving the massive market bubble the Fed originally created vulnerable to implosion.  Equities in particular display the behavior of an out of control bullet train similar to the 2006/2007 bubble, or even the delusional exuberance prominent before the crash of 1929. 

All of this optimism is dependent on two things – dumb blind faith that all investors will continue to act in perfect concert to always "buy the dip", and, continued faith that central banks will forever step in to obstruct and reverse any market correction.

An observant person, however, might have noticed that central banks around the world seem to be acting in a coordinated fashion to remove stimulus support from markets and raise interest rates, cutting off supply lines of easy money that have long been a crutch for our crippled economy.  The Bank of England raised rates this past week, as the Federal Reserve indicated yet another rate hike in December.  The Europeans Central Bank continues to prep the public for coming rate hikes, while the Bank of Japan has assured the public that "inflation" expectations have been met and no new stimulus is necessary.  If all of this appears coordinated, that is because it is.

Fed policy is not dictated by the Fed chair, and it is certainly not dictated by Donald Trump. As former chairman Alan Greenspan openly admitted, the central bank does NOT answer to government, it is an autonomous policy making machine.  Fed chairs are as easily replaced as lawnmower parts; they are mascots for the banking system, nothing more.  Once they are "nominated" by the president, they take their orders from another source entirely, and I would even question the validity of the nomination process and how the original list of candidates is chosen.  For the real puppeteers at the Fed, one would need to look to an organization outside the U.S., called the Bank for International Settlements.

Many Subtle Changes Add Up To Unprecedented Instability

I think it is vital for people to consider time when it comes to economics. Changes we think were abrupt during historic moments of crisis were often not abrupt at all. Almost all financial crisis "events" were preceded by years if not decades of growing but subtle cracks in the foundation. If you were to travel back 10 years ago and explain to the average person (or the average mainstream economist) what is happening today, he would probably scoff indignantly. Yet today these things are accepted as commonplace, or ignored as unimportant.  Time and short attentions spans are the bane of free societies.

The skeleton of the "new world order" economy is right in front of us. The triggers for explosive change have already been planted. What concerns me is, when these changes come to fruition and crisis follows, will the masses even notice?

http://WarMachines.com

Ex-Soros Trader Sued For Viciously Abusing Women In “Manhattan Sex Dungeon”

Out of all the stories of harassment, abuse and victimization of women that have emerged since the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke last month, this one is possibly the most repugnant.

To wit, the New York Post reported Friday that a former portfolio manager at Soros Fund Management, the firm founded by Billionaire investor George Soros, sadistically abused and victimized women in a Manhattan penthouse sex dungeon – even beating one woman so brutally that one of her breast implants flipped.

Howie Rubin, 62, a former Bear Stearns trader who was featured in the best-selling Michael Lewis novels “Liar’s Poker” and “The Big Short,” was accused in a $27 million lawsuit filed in Brooklyn federal court of luring women to his sex dungeon, abusing them, then trying to silence them with settlements and NDAs.

Rubin reportedly rented a lavish Metropolitan Tower pad in Midtown to indulge in brutal sex with women whom he paid between $2000 and $5000 per session, according to the suit filed Thursday.

The three unidentified plaintiffs in the case – including two Playboy Playmates – claim the married father raped and beat them to the point that they needed extensive medical attention, court papers say.

After luring the women to the $8 million penthouse, they were shown to a side room with chains, and sex toys along with other BDSM equipment. There, they were gagged, tied up and viciously beaten by Rubin. One woman complained that he punched her in the head.

“I’m going to rape you like I rape my daughter,” Rubin allegedly barked during one of the purported beatings.

In one session, he beat one of the women’s “breasts so badly that her right implant flipped,” the papers state. The former Bear Stearns trader paid her $20,000 to repair the damage.

One plaintiff was tied up, gagged and shocked with a cattle prod in her groin before Rubin allegedly raped her, according to the filing.

Two unnamed female fixers and a lawyer abetted Rubin’s abusive sexual romps by coaxing women into signing NDAs.

The trio sought to “cover up Rubin’s sexual misconduct and criminal abuse of women and to serve as a cover for his wide-ranging human trafficking scheme,” wrote Balestriere.

A lawyer for one of the women blasted Rubin’s alleged conduct.

“While arrogance and self-import may convince certain men otherwise, neither money nor power gives any person the right to victimize a woman,” said Jeremy Saland.

Rubin declined to comment to the post. Of course, Soros recently made headlines for donating most of the assets held by Soros management – which had been converted into a family office for the Soros family – to his “Open Society” foundation. The gift was worth a reported $18 billion.

As we pointed out way back in 2009, Rubin is described in Michael Lewis in "Liar's Poker" as the man who (in the days before Kerviel and other next gen "superstar" traders) had "lost more money on a single trade than anyone on the history of Wall Street."

http://WarMachines.com

Israel’s New “Soros Bill” Aims To Stop Funds From ‘Anti-Semitic’ Donors

Having made no friends this week with his McCarthyite 'blacklist' of potential Russia-sympathizers, and facing bans and probes throughout eastern Europe (for his 'Open Society' actions), bilionaire investor George Soros has a new enemy – Isarel!

As Haaretz' Jonathan Lis reports, MK Miki Zohar (Likud) announced on Monday that he planned to submit a bill that would make it harder for leftist organizations to receive funding from organizations considered hostile to Israel.

He said the bill, named for mogul George Soros, won the approval of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (but, associates of Netanyahu couldn’t say on Monday whether the prime minister would support the proposed law in the Knesset).

 

Its exact wording has yet to be disclosed.

 

Zohar said the bill would prevent “donors who are anti-Semites, inciters or hostile to Israel” from donating to Israeli organizations.

 

Zohar said he was aiming at donors like Soros who donate to organizations like Adalah – the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, B’tselem, Breaking the Silence, Ir Amim, Machsom Watch, Yesh Din and the New Israel Fund, which he said were all anti-Zionist.

 

He said such donors should be considered anti-Semitic, inflammatory and hostile, and donations from them to non-profits or Israeli corporations should be forbidden.

 

According to the bill, the Strategic Affairs Ministry will compile and periodically update a list of bodies and organizations that are hostile to Israel or are defined as anti-Semitic.

The actions of Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and now the Israeli government appear to be escalating since Soros donated $18 billion his 'Open Society' Foundation.

http://WarMachines.com