Every word we read, every corporate broadcast, every espoused punditry opinion, every angle that’s visible, everything surrounding the Paris Climate “Treaty”, All.Of.It., is driven by multinational banks and corporations who have a vested financial interest.

The Paris Climate Treaty has nothing to do with “climate” and everything possible to do with economics, globalism and the controlled redistribution of economic wealth as constructed through decades of advanced policies of multinational financial interests.

There are factually TRILLIONS of dollars at stake.

When you consider the pontificating pearl-clutching from the financial and industrial elites, ask yourself this very basic question:

If Elon Musk (Tesla), Tim Cook (Apple), Larry Page (google), Mark Zuckerberg (facebook), or any of the myriad of multinational executives really cared about “climate change”, then why are they doing business in China?

The primary concern for every affiliated entity surrounds economics, not climate.  “Climate” issues are the Trojan horse, the false ruse, the talking point, the scheme to get economic systems in place -yes, political systems- to control the distributive flow of larger economic wealth within all nations.  Period.

What ObamaCare was to your loss of healthcare individualism, so too is the Paris Treaty a political tool to deconstruct national economic individualism.  FULL-STOP.

(more…)

President Trump’s EU strategy is swimmingly effective. Truly, President Trump’s multinational approach is jaw-droppingly transparent (they’ve obviously never read any of Trump’s books), and today France’s Emmanuel Macron showed just how thoroughly disconnected he is from understanding his own position.

Wunderkind Emmanuel Macron, following the exact same advisory recommendations which planted egg on Obama’s face, threatens Vladimir Putin and Bashir Assad with a red-line of military action if chemical weapons are used in Syria:

“Any use of chemical weapons would results in reprisals and an immediate riposte, at least where France is concerned,” Macron said, standing next to Putin in the Versailles palace outside of Paris.  (link)

Emmanuel Macron threatening unilateral action if Syria’s Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons? Hilarious, if it wasn’t so substantively dangerous.

The orbit of influence surrounding the wunderkind (all caviar liberal socialists) have convinced Macron that now is the time to project a strong EU image to compensate for President Trump’s bold stance pointing out the EU need to step out from behind the skirt of NATO and provide for their own defense.  Politically, Macron’s yapping might play well with a domestic or EU centric audience…. (more…)

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is at the root of the European Union’s most terrible policies, both financial and social.  However, her life-skills within EU politics have refined her instincts at playing the wounded indian routine to avoid responsibility in the aftermath of the consequences.

In addition Merkel points the finger at others never taking ownership of the catastrophic outcomes from her expressed socialist and left-wing multicultural policies.  The economic migrants from the Mid-East and North Africa flooding the EU are the most visible example.

The conversations at the most recent G7 summit displayed an intensely smart and strategic approach by U.S. President Donald Trump in that he accepted the EU positions that enhanced their vulnerability (collective trade) and yet refused to accept EU positions that would have weakened U.S. economic outcomes (ie. climate agreements).

(more…)

President Trump’s political opposition, including Most Swamp Media (MSM), have claimed he went too far in calling out NATO members for their lack of funding their own military and security apparatus.

During President Trump’s latest trip to NATO he stated publicly they needed to improve and do it quickly.  The media expressed a position that President Trump was too direct; however, what the media never shows is how far out of balance the entire financial system is for NATO.

The members of NATO agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on their own internal defense and security.   Most people are probably familiar with a graphic such as below which appears on CNN website explaining the dynamic:

However, what is rarely added to the discussion is the scope of the U.S. GDP in comparison to other nation states.  For us to spend 3.61% of our massive GDP ($18.5 Trillion) is actually $670,344,000,000  That represents 76.11% of the entire NATO budget.

In the graphic below I’ve added the GDP and extended the math to show how much the United States actually pays in whole dollars in comparison to the top 10 NATO member nations:

(more…)

Leaders of the G7, a finance-centric geopolitical group of international leaders, issued their joint summit statement on Saturday.  U.S. President Donald Trump refused to align the United States with the joint declaration pledging commitment to the Paris accord on climate change.

[Page 6 pdf below] …”The United States of America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics.  Understanding this process, the Heads of State and of Government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom and the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission reaffirm their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement, as previously stated at the Ise-Shima Summit.”

President Trump tweeted at the conclusion of the G7 Summit:

The full summit agreement is below:

(more…)

Sip slowly, this explainer was hard to write.   There is a considerable amount of perplexed frustration following on the heels of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifying to the Senate Banking Committee earlier today and specifically saying:

02:20 Glass-Steagall? “we do not support a separation of banks from investment banks, we think that would have a very significant problem on the financial markets, on the economy, on liquidity; and we think that there is proper things that potentially we could look at around regulation, but we do not support a separation of banks and investment banks.”

That statement runs counter to the Trump administration’s prior policy statements outlining a preference for a reinstatement of some form of “Glass-Steagall” regulatory separation between commercial banking and investment banking.

In essence when combined with the totality of Mnuchin’s testimony before the committee, Mnuchin is saying the current “too big to fail” (‘too big to succeed’) issue has created a problem for lending liquidity.  Specifically, if divisional separation is required – the banks best interests would naturally put the investment division ahead of commercial lending and the liquid capital within the overall economy would shrink.

I think we have a handle on what the administration is doing based on the executive orders signed and explained earlier.  Bear with me…

(more…)

Something appears to be happening within the administration that is currently impossible to define with regard to intent of construct. For the sake of my own internal disposition, and to ensure a geographic distance from sharp things, a modicum of levity is necessarily required.  Cue suspicious cats:

Unfortunately, it’s too early (not fully developed pixels) to see the picture, but there appears to be an intentionally constructed parallel set of administrative policies that almost gives the appearance of a paralleling administration. It should be emphasized the construct herein is not necessarily definable as good or bad; it’s just simply too early.

It begins with Vice President Mike Pence delivering a speech at the Invest in America Summit today, which is primarily a gathering of the largest lobbying group in Washington DC via The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  No single lobbying organization has done more to advance global trade interests and diminish the U.S. manufacturing economy than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and its president Tom Donohue.

Simultaneous to this event, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was on Capitol Hill testifying to the Senate Banking Committee, and appears to have recently accepted the premise that the U.S. banking system is institutionally too big to fail, and more alarmingly too big to reform.

First, the Summit remarks:

(more…)

To understand the larger objectives of the G7 Financial Ministers meeting it is important to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect. Global financial exploitation of national markets:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic.  Team Trump focuses exclusively on bilateral trade deals with specific policy only looking out for the national interests of the United States.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.  This puts the multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding interest of an asset they cannot exploit.

If you can see the ramifications, and can grasp the inherent anger, you can begin to understand the severity of the opposition to President Trump.

(more…)

Andrew Breitbart truthfully stated: “politics are downstream from pop culture”.  However, what Andrew never fully digested was that “Pop Culture” is downstream from “Economics”.  Show me the opposition to President Trump and his policy objectives, and I’ll show you an entity with a vested financial interest in that opposition.   Domestic or foreign opposition, it matters not – the financial motives are the same.

Last week commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross delivered remarks at the 47th Annual Washington Conference of the Americas.  Within his remarks Wilburine explains the new U.S. administration’s strategy to increase overall commerce while reducing the trade deficit.

The Q&A begins around 19:00 and Secretary Ross explains what the Chinese “One-Belt One-Road” means to U.S. Trade.  If you are interested in economic policy and how it will effect your daily lives this is a great watch.  Remember, this is raw source material where you can make your own judgements about what is said/happening without the filter of the media telling you what is said/happening.

.

When you understand what is outlined in honest explanations like this you can destroy the talking points of oppositional voices.  This is the intellectual armament that helps you to discuss with your friends and families and cut through the media nonsense.  The important battle-space is between our ears.

(more…)

To understand the China ‘One-Belt / ‘One-World’ economic trade forum it becomes necessary to understand how structurally weak the Chinese economy was created.

.

People often talk about the ‘strength’ of China’s economic model; and indeed within a specific part of their economy -manufacturing- they do have economic strength.  However, the underlying critical architecture of the Chinese economic model is structurally flawed and President Trump with his current economic team understand the weakness better than all international adversaries.

Lets take a stroll and lightly discuss.

China is a central planning economy.  Meaning it never was an outcropping of natural economic conditions.  China was/is controlled as a communist style central-planning government; As such, it is important to reference the basic structural reality that China’s economy was created from the top down.

This construct of government creation is a key big picture distinction that sets the backdrop to understand how weak the economy really is.

(more…)