It's Obvious Who Will Replace Trump After The Controlled Demolition Of The Economy

By Brandon Smith

AltMarket.com, July25, 2019: In the months leading up to the 2016 election I had been predicting a Trump win based on a particular theory which I believe still holds true today – namely the theory that the global banking elites in power were allowing so-called “populist” movements in the US and Europe to gain political traction near the very end of the decade long “Everything Bubble”. Once populist groups were entrenched and feeling overconfident, the cabal would then tighten liquidity into existing economic weakness and crash the system on their heads. Populists would get the blame for an economic disaster that the central banks had engineered many years in advance.

Once enough suffering had been dealt to the populace, globalists and extreme leftists would arrive on the scene to offer anti-populism as a solution; meaning the centralization and socialization of everything on a scale never before witnessed except perhaps in the darkest days of the Bolshevik Revolution.

This theory allowed me to predict the success of the Brexit vote in the UK, Trump's entry into the White House, the Federal Reserve's interest rate hikes and balance sheet cuts into economic weakness, and now it is looking more and more like my March prediction of a “No Deal” Brexit will turn out to be correct with Boris Johnson rising to the position of Prime Minister. So, I continue to stand by it.

Read more

Were the Skripal Poisonings a British Intelligence Service Hoax?

In an interview conducted in the Kremlin on June 19, this year, Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, Oliver Stone. The discussion turned to the case of Sergei Skripal, the pardoned Russian traitor, resident in Salisbury, England where he and his daughter, Yulia, were reported by British authorities to have been poisoned by Russian security service operatives who painted the deadly nerve agent Novichok on the knob of the front door of Sergei Skripal's house.

Concerning that incident, Stone's conversation with Putin included the following:

Stone: What has happened to Skripal? Where is he? Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding. Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei Skripal to come back to Russia? Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me? Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so. Oliver Stone: Who did then? Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today’s world. In fact, a fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just wanted to provoke a scandal.

Putin is certainly not acknowledging Russian responsibility for the Skripal poisonings, yet he said the Brits weren't responsible either. So the Russia position seems to be that the poisonings were a hoax to smear Russia, and that no one was actually poisoned with the deadly nerve agent, Novichok.

But if that were the case, why? Why would the British Government engage in such charade? Presumably as part of the UK–US deep state project to to create an obstacle to a US/Russian rapprochement. 

But if so, surely there would have been a pretext. And if there were a pretext, it must have been the visit to Salisbury of the alleged Russian security service operatives, Petrov and Boshirov, immediately prior to the poisoning of the Skripals with the deadly, "developed-in-Russia," nerve agent that proved curiously undeadly, at least in the case of the Skripals. 

According to British authorities, Petrov and Boshirov were in Salisbury to paint Novichok on the knob of Sergei Skripal's front door. But what if they were there for some entirely different clandestine purpose? Then a faked poisoning might have been judged by the UK as a good means of retaliation, since it could be blamed on Russia, by virtue of the presence of the Russian agents. 

But there was also the case of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, reported by British authorities to have been poisoned with Novichok contained in a perfume bottle that they found in a rubbish bin in Salisbury. 

Apparently Dawn Sturgess died as a consequence of applying the contents of the bottle, which she took to be perfume, which if true is inconsistent with the idea that the Novichok poisonings were simply a piece of theatre intended to sway public opinion. But then perhaps it was precisely to create such an apparent inconsistency that Dawn Sturgess had to "die." 

Is thatDawn Sturgess carrying a red 

bag and accompanied by and Pablo

Miller, Sergei Skripal's MI6 handler? 

Image source.

As far as we know, Dawn Sturgess did die, and if the circumstances of here death are as reported by British authorities, her death was certainly tragic.

But if the incident was part of a propaganda exercise, then Ms. Sturgess may still be alive and living at public expense under another name?

But if Dawn Sturgess is still alive, then she must have been one of the actors in a British operation to discredit Russia, a possibility suggested by the surveillance camera image of a women who might well have been Dawn Stugess accompanied by a man who might well have been Pablo Miller, Segei Skripals MI6 handler.

The CCTV image, taken at around the time of the alleged poisonings, is from a camera in the lane connecting Zizzi's restaurant in Salisbury, where the Skripals had just eaten, with the park where they are supposed to have been poisoned.

The woman in the photograph is carrying a red bag, which is interesting in view of the report of a witness at the scene of the poisoning who said, referring to Yulia Skripal:

She had a red bag at her feet.

So perhaps we need no longer mourn for Dawn Sturgess, who may yet be living comfortably at public expense, albeit under a different name.

The Demolition of Robert Mueller: LOL

Democrats Campaign Slogan for 2020: "Americans suck, vote for us"

Kurt Schlichter:

TownHall, July 22, 2019: The Democrats’ 2020 theme is that you are terrible and the party’s slogan will be “Americans suck, vote for us.” The precise candidate who will employ it is not important because they all embrace the notion that punishing the essential moral failure of you and me and every other Normal American is the key goal of the Donkey Party. That goes equally for the Handsey Old Prospector, the Socialist Squaw, Crusty the Commie, Spartacus Sharpton, Starchild, the Furry, Not Ms. Willie Brown, the Unfabulous Gay Guy, and the many Unfabulous Ungay Guys.

They all agree that you are terrible because you don’t know your place, which is behind a rock pushing it endlessly uphill for the benefit of people who hate you.

Remember Animal Farm from back when you were in school and they taught it as a chilling warning about socialism instead of as a how-to manual? Remember the horse who got worked nearly to death then got sent to the glue farm?

Guess what? You’re the horse.

Read more:

Related:
Wayne Root: The Definition of a Racist

Bigots of Silicon Valley, No. 79: FaceBook's Hatred of Christian Speech

FaceBook apparently regards quotation of the Christian saints as "hate speech," hence a notice from FaceBook to Dominic Bettinelli informing him that his posting of the following words of Saint Augustine, went against Facebook’s “Community Standards on hate speech:”

Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin; our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon. But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others. They seek to criticize, not to correct. Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others. St. Augustine

FaceBook's Kuckerberg and associates are clearly "hopeless creatures" who paying little if any attention to their own sins have become obsessively "interested in the sins of others.... Unable to excuse themselves, [they] accuse others."

Hate this Zucks:

Rand Paul: Like a Future President, Trashes PC Lefty Liars

What do IQ Tests Test?

If you think IQ tests test intelligence, you might ask yourself: How do you know?

What is intelligence?

Give us your definition.

Or by intelligence do you just mean IQ, in which case your understanding of intelligence is tautological: intelligence is performance on an IQ test, which is measured by performance on an IQ test.

IQ and wealth at low scale (outside the tail).
Mostly Noise and no strikingly visible effect
above $40K, but huge noise. Psychologists
responding to this piece do not realize that
statistics is about not interpreting noise.
From Zagorsky (2007) via Nassim Taleb.

Fact is, the IQ testers never have defined intelligence. Instead, they came up with a set of puzzlers and declared your score on this test is the measure of your intelligence.

Trouble is, the IQ-ists have never attempted to show how IQ test results relate to what is understood by the term intelligence as manifest by, say, the creative work of a poet, a painter, a composer, an architect, or a scientist, or the more mundane endeavors of a politician, a policeman, a prostitute or a peddler of illicit drugs. Their strongest claim is that IQ tests predict "career success", except as anyone who looks into the matter will find, the correlation is trivial.

The best that IQ tests can do is provide an indication of academic aptitude, but even in that case they don't work well, not even as well as traditional academic exams, which is why Harvard and other such places use a SAT test with a mathematical component and a verbal component, the results of which are by no means closely correlated

Better still, obviously, would be to break things down further, e.g., SAT Physics, SAT Biology, SAT English, SAT music, etc. Except that would be giving up, since it would be an acknowledgement that the whole idea of intelligence as unitary feature of mind measurable on a single linear scale is nonsense.

Related:
Nassim Taleb: The psychologists' construct, general intelligence, is based on a statistical error.

Hillary-Supporting Expert: How Google Stole Between 2,4 and 10.6 Million Votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016

Trump Fuels a Tribal War in Nancy’s House

By Patrick Buchanan:

Trump is driving a wedge right through the Democratic Party, between its moderate and militant wings. With his attacks over the last 48 hours, Trump has signaled whom he prefers as his opponent in 2020. It is not Biden; it is “the Squad.”

President Donald Trump’s playground taunt Sunday that “the Squad” of four new radical liberal House Democrats, all women of color, should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came,” dominated Monday morning’s headlines.

Yet those headlines smothered the deeper story.

The Democrats are today using language to describe their own leaders that is similar to the language of the 1960s radicals who denounced Democratic segregationist governors like Ross Barnett and George Wallace.

Consider what the four women have been saying.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of attacking “newly elected women of color.” Was she calling Pelosi a “racist”?

“No!” protested AOC. But it sure sounded like it.

Read more

Related: 

Zero Hedge: Trump Slams AOC's 'Squad' As "The Four Horsewomen Of The Apocalypse"
Mark Dice: Exposing the dishonesty of the anti-democratic left

Where Are the Environmentalists When We Need Them

The Quake to Make Los Angeles a Radioactive Dead Zone Nothing significant has been done to improve safety at two coastal reactors upwind of ten million people that are surrounded by earthquake faults in a tsunami zone like the one where the four Fukushima reactors have already exploded ... Read more

Why I prefer DuckDuckGo to Google

Search  DuckDuckGo for: "Yes, Tariffs Raise Domestic Prices, That's the Reason for Them,"

and you get a straight answer.

Search Google for: "Yes, Tariffs Raise Domestic Prices, That's the Reason for Them,"

and you get this.

Duh.

Even Bing does better than that. As well as DDGo, in fact. Well done Bing.

How Civilizations Die

The young always believe that what they believe is not only true but morally superior to what their elders believe. Yet in the present age it is clear that the beliefs of the young must generally be false, since what the young believe changes radically from one generation to another, and clearly not every generation of youth can be sole possessors of both truth and virtue. Most likely, none are. On the contrary, it is pretty clear that every generation is sold a load of rubbish by the media and by what Britain's next prime minister has called corduroy-jacketed, snaggletooth, lefty academics.

Peter Hitchens, who's been around for a while since swallowing the Trotskyite Kool Aid that dominated the progessive youth of his day, made clear in an interview about his book, the Abolition of Britain, how radically ideas change from generation to generation. In brief, he says:

People no longer believe in certain things,  he says, meaning by reference to "people," grown-up people, not the Troskyite youth of his day. The change, he says,  is not a positive thing. ... We've seen a decay of something. What has decayed, he says, is:  the Christian belief that used to inform every action and thought in this country (Britain) and now doesn't. See the interview on Hitchens' book: The Abolition of Britain

Thus one sees that what H.L. Mencken call the acids of modernity are able not only to entirely destroy a civilization, as a moral, cultural and intellectual way of thought and life, but to bring about a similar revolution with every generation. Young people need to think about that a bit. Are they really the vanguard of a new enlightenment, or the dupes of snaggletoothed lefty academics, to use a phrase coined by Britain's next Prime Minister, wading into an ever deeper civilizational swamp.

Britain's Next PM: The Margaret Thatcher Lecture, 2013

UK's Ambassador Craig Murray on Britain's Rude Ambassador to the US

Craig Murray, formerly one of the brightest lights of Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), has a simple explanation for the embarrassing leak of comments about Donald Trump and his administration by Britain's ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch. Basically, he argues, Darroch is a jerk, and someone saw an opportunity for pay-back.

Kim Darroch is a rude and aggressive person, who is not pleasant at all to his subordinates. He rose to prominence within the FCO under New Labour at a time when right wing, pro-Israel foreign policy views and support for the Iraq War were important assets to career progress, as was the adoption of a strange “laddish” culture led from No. 10 by Alastair Campbell, involving swearing, football shirts and pretending to be working class (Darroch was privately educated). Macho management was suddenly the thing. At a time when news management was the be all and end all for the Blair administration, Darroch was in charge of the FCO’s Media Department. I remember being astonished when, down the telephone, he called me “fucking stupid” for disagreeing with him on some minor policy matter. I had simply never come across that kind of aggression in the FCO before. People who worked directly for him had to put up with this kind of thing all the time. Most senior ambassadors used to have interests like Chinese literature and Shostakovitch. Darroch’s are squash and sailing. He is a bull of a man. In my view, the most likely source of the leaks is a former subordinate taking revenge for years of bullying, or a present one trying to get rid of an unpleasant boss. Read the entire post

To which Craig Murray subsequently added his reaction to the reaction of those who argue that the resignation of Kim Darroch was the result of an attack on an apolitical civil service:

"Darroch’s rise to the top of the FCO" Murray writes:

... was in fact a startling example of the politicisation of the civil service – there is no doubt that his enthusiastic support for the Iraq War, and for every neo-con war of aggression since, is what endeared him so strongly to the people who make the decisions on the top posts (and do not believe the fiction that ministers have no influence on them). ... Read the entire post

More About the British Inspired Deep State: Chrystia Freeland a Canadian Operative of the Cecil Rhodes Secret Society for Global Governance

Further to yesterday`s post on Cecil Rhodes' century-old plan for plutocratic global governance, Here`s more on the subject from Matthew Ehret focusing on the NWO operative Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Oxford-trained agent of the NWO.

The Strange Case Of Chrystia Freeland And The Failure Of The “Super Elite” By Matthew Ehret, 08/07/2019: Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has become a bit of a living parody of everything wrong with the detached technocratic neo-liberal order which has driven the world through 50 years of post-industrial decay. Now, two years into the Trump presidency, and five years into the growth of a new system shaped by the Russia-China alliance, the world has become a very different place from the one which Freeland and her controllers wish it to be. Having been set up as a counterpart to the steely Hillary Clinton who was supposed to win the 2016 election, Freeland and her ilk have demonstrated their outdated thinking in everything they have set out to achieve since the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Certainly before that, everything seemed to be going smoothly enough for End of History disciples promoting a script that was supposed to culminate in a long-sought for “New World Order”. The Script up until Now Things were going especially well since the collapse of the Soviet system in the early 1990s. The collapse ushered in a unipolar world order with the European Union and NAFTA, followed soon thereafter by the World Trade Organization and the 1999 destruction of Glass-Steagall (1). The trans-Atlantic at last was converted into a cage of “post-sovereign nations” that no longer had actual control of their own powers of credit generation. Under NATO, even national militaries were subject to technocratic control. This cage was perfect for the governing elite “scientifically managing” from above while the little people bickered over their diminishing employment and standards of living from below. Read more

The British Roots Of The US Deep State: How The Round Table Infiltrated America

By Matthew Ehret

OrientalReview.org, July 6, 2019: With the nearly weekly revelations that the British Foreign Office, MI6, and GCHQ have been behind the long standing agenda to undermine the Presidency of Donald Trump and undo the peaceful alliance between nationalist leaders in America, Russia, China and elsewhere, a new focus on the British hand in undermining the United States has become a serious thought for many citizens. In the first week of the new year, fuel was added to this fire when internal memos were leaked from the British-run Integrity Initiative featuring a startling account of the techniques deployed by the anti-Russian British operation to infiltrate American intelligence institutions, think tanks and media.

For those who may not know, The Integrity Initiative is an anti-Russian propaganda outfit funded to the tune of $140 million by the British Foreign office. Throughout 2019, leaks have been released featuring documents dated to the early period of Trump’s election, demonstrating that this organization, already active across Europe promoting anti-Russian PR and smearing nationalist leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn, was intent on spreading deeply into the State Department and setting up “clusters” of anti-Trump operatives. The documents reveal high level meetings that Integrity Initiative Director Chris Donnelly had with former Trump Advisor Sebastien Gorka, McCain Foundation director Kurt Volker, Pentagon PR guru John Rendon among many others.

The exposure of the British hand behind the scenes affords us a unique glimpse into the real historical forces undermining America’s true constitutional tradition throughout the 20th century, as Mueller/the Five Eyes/Integrity Initiative are not new phenomena but actually follow a modus operandi set down for already more than a century. One of the biggest obstacles to seeing this modus operandi run by the British Empire is located in the belief in a mythology which has become embedded in the global psyche for over half a century and which we should do our best to free ourselves of.

Read more

Related:
Matthew Ehret: Trump's Relationship To Russia & China: A Revival Of The Henry Wallace Doctrine?

As Media Predicted: Tiny Crowd Attend Trump's Independence Day Speech

Trump Speech, Independence Day 2019: Tiny crowd as 

predicted CNN etc.

The EU Readies for War with Broomsticks for Guns

Did Vladimir Putin Just Admit Russian Responsibility for the Novichok Poisonings in England's Green and Pleasant Land?

As anyone visiting here on a more or less regular basis will know, we have written a number of posts about the Novichok poisonings in England of the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Julia, and also the British citizens, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess.

Throughout, we have been skeptical of the British position that the poisonings were perpetrated by the Russian state, roused to seek vengeance against Skripal, despite having formerly pardoned him in connection with a spy swap. Rather, it seemed to us more probable that the poisonings were a charade undertaken by British security services as means to stoke public antipathy toward Russia.

Our assessment has now to be questioned in light of Vladimir Putin's remarks on the case that were addressed to former UK Prime Minister Teresa May during the recent G20 summit.

Specifically, Putin said:

“Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying the Salisbury incident is the way to do it, but traitors must be punished.”

Sounds pretty much like a confession of Russian responsibility to me, which in itself, makes the statement remarkable. But if it is a confession, it raises the question: for what was Sergei Skripal being punished? Not presumably, for the treasonous acts for which he was formerly convicted, jailed and subsequently pardoned.

The Russian State English Language broadcaster, RT, puts some spin on Putin's comment, stating:

At the same time, [Putin] made it clear that the poisoning of the former double agent Sergei Skirpal and his daughter Yulia, which took place in the British town of Salisbury back in March 2018 and was blamed on Russia by London, is definitely “not the way to do it.” The president explained that the former Russian intelligence colonel already received his punishment under Russian law as he served his time in prison and was therefore “off the radar.” He reiterated that this whole affair had little to do with Russia, while maintaining that London has failed to present any sufficient proof of Moscow’s alleged guilt to the public till this day.

Which, does not, it seems to me, settle the matter. Putin has exceptional skill in the diplomatic use of words, and RT's spin does little negate what seems the most plausible interpretation of his comment.

However, it is possible that Putin's statement was, in fact, a taunt, a taunt based on the knowledge, shared with Theresa May to whom his remark was addressed, that Sergei Skripal was a triple agent, who, having moved to England, ostensibly to continue in the service of the British to whom he had betrayed Russia, was in fact, acting in the service of Russia.

It might well then have been that his allegiance to Russia, having been discovered by the Brits, became the justification for a British charade intended to demonize Russia. That would explain the look of disgust, or is it despair, on Theresa May's face, during her interaction with Putin at the G20 Tokyo summit.

One hopes that Rob Slane, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, and others who have been skeptical of the official British narrative of this peculiar case will offer their perspective on Putin's comment.

Christianity in the Age of Atheism (8)

Atheists for Christ

An Exclusive Interview with Jesus Christ

Damn Fool Atheists

The Rationality of Christian Faith

Atheists for a Religious Society

Political Correctness Has Replaced Christianity As the Religion of the West

A Politically Correct Civilization Cannot Stand

Fundamentalist Atheism