This is the year we find if Brandon Smith’s controversial thesis about Donald Trump—that the real powers that be wanted him elected to discredit conservatives and the liberty movement—holds water or is all wet. From Smith at alt-market.com:
Yes, the narrative of the “new normal” has been around for so long now that many people have simply grown used to it. The assumption is that the fiscal “new normal” has become the fiscal “normal,” and though the fundamentals continue to strain under the weight of poor global demand and historic debt levitated by extraneous fiat stimulus, the masses feel far less fear than is warranted. Hey, why should they? We’ve managed around eight years skating on thin ice, why shouldn’t we expect eight more years of the same?
The banking elites have done the job they set out to do, which was to drive the economy to the very edge of the financial cliff, and then keep it suspended there until the general public became comfortable living next door to the abyss.
Why do this? Well, the greater dynamic at play here is something the average person will not understand or refuses to examine — economics today is about mass psychology. The economy is a tool, or a weapon, by which international financiers can influence the public mind and the emotions of the mob. In order to grasp the mechanics of economics it is not enough to deal in statistics and trade principles; one must also grasp human behavior and how it is manipulated. One must acknowledge that in economics we witness the transmutation of societies by word and by force, by chaos and by order. Economics is alchemy.
To contiue reading: The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017,
I wrote the following in response to an earlier Brandon Smith piece in the same vein, then decided to let it sit for awhile to find out how it held up to review cold. Well enough, I think, to run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes . . .
————————————————————-
Again, cabals. Plural. It’s likely that there actually is a Bankster Cabal (or, more likely, are Banksters Cabals) scheming to take over in the aftermath of a financial cataclysm, but I doubt they have the cohesion and influence to choreograph an entire Hillary chump / Trump champ kabuki dance in the manner which Brandon Smith suggests. He makes much of documents in which the Banksters intent is revealed, but intent is not always congruent with outcome. I also doubt that they have the clout to impose a unilateral decision to ‘Pull It’ upon the other cabals, in particular the National Security / Intel / Military axis (Spooks, for short, also not monolithic, rather a loose confederation of yet more cabals, with ever shifting conflicts and alliances) who, while perfectly comfortable with the limited chaos produced by the (much simpler to orchestrate) 9/11 op, are unlikely to countenance a gambit that has real potential to severely disrupt their own rackets. Further, I maintain, contra Brandon, that when it gets down to nut-cutting time, the Spooks will own the Banksters, not vice versa. In the cage match of Deep State cabals, to paraphrase the old hippie aphorism; guns will get you through not having control of the money better than money will get you through not having control of the guns.
I also think it’s noteworthy that Trump pretty heavily pushed the ‘global elitists are doing all this deliberately, ripping you off’ message during his campaign, and that the response appeared quite favorable. If The Big Puke does happen on his watch, he might get a lot more support out of saying “see, just like I said, now here’s how we keep them from taking over . . .” than the Banksters are counting on.
It is tempting to ascribe deterioration to conspiracies rather than an agglomeration of many mistakes by many diffuse actors. No doubt there are many conspirators out there who would like to gain power by fair means or foul. They probably do believe a political, economic, and financial collapse will further their designs. I believe that just the elements of chaos and sheer randomness unleashed in such an event would lay low the best laid plans of globalists, banksters, and the like. They may well respond with police states and force, but if groups of random terrorists can wreak havoc on Western governments, I think much better armed and organized indigenous groups, in the US especially, would put up stiff and perpetual resistance that could last decades. If you can’t tame Afghanistan or Iraq, what makes you think you can tame, say, Texas, Appalachia, or Los Angeles? What guarantee do you have that the troops and police you’re counting on the further your repression don’t switch sides?
As you note, Trump may be able to place the blame for collapse where it belongs. I think Mike Tyson’s famous aphorism holds for both globalists who think they can take advantage of chaos and those deluded idiots who think they can wage a “winnable” nuclear war: Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. I think both Smith and the globalists themselves massively overestimate their power.
>It is tempting to ascribe deterioration to conspiracies rather than an agglomeration of many mistakes by many diffuse actors.
Yes, I also dismiss the notion of the Secret Office Where They Run Everything From, as Frank Zappa facetiously (and hilariously) put it. However, I insist that for many discrete events, e.g. 9/11, the Kennedy assassinations, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, etc. some ‘conspiracy theory’ explanations – properly speaking, alternatives to the Official Story – are valid. In fact, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ was deliberately promoted into common parlance as a pejorative, to counter those who questioned the official account of the JFK assassination. And I’m not sure that “mistakes” is exactly the right word. As Rand said, in a number of different contexts: Mistakes of this size are not made innocently. I sometimes refer to the whole Deep State milieu as a conspiracy of values; meaning not overt, conscious collaboration but rather the shared belief that elites should rule, without constraint WRT methods or consideration for the interests of the non-elite.
>Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.
A much more colorful way of saying “intent is not always congruent with outcome”.
>I believe that just the elements of chaos and sheer randomness unleashed in such an event would lay low the best laid plans of globalists, banksters, and the like. . . . If you can’t tame Afghanistan or Iraq . . .
>I think both Smith and the globalists themselves massively overestimate their power.
I believe you are correct. I hope you’re correct. I just might not have quite as much confidence in that belief as you do.
I agree that many discrete events, including the ones you cite, are probably the product of conspiracies. And you, and Rand, are correct; mistake is not the right word, much of it is corruption and evil and certainly not innocent. The use of the word mistake was a mistake on my part. As for my “confidence” in my belief–it is the confidence of scientist who thinks he’s found the most explantory hypothesis, but it’s a hypothesis only. I could be wrong, but like you, I hope I’m not. It’s a belief based on one of the main themes of Atlas Shrugged: evil ultimately destroys itself through its own impotence, especially when the good steps aside and lets it.
>. . . evil ultimately destroys itself through its own impotence, especially when the good steps aside and lets it.
That’s exactly why I have a lesser degree of “confidence”, and one of my primary differences with Rand. I think she grievously underapprehended the human capacity for compartmentalization – bluntly, doublethink: being fully competent and rational in some spheres of thought, and utterly batshit delusional insane in others, particularly morality / ethics. That’s why I don’t think one can dismiss out of hand – as Rand did – the 1984 scenario: that tyranny can sustain itself indefinitely with the dregs of rational thought even having eradicated the individual, independent mind. People will not step aside and allow evil to destroy itself if they don’t know what is the good, and if they are led to believe good is evil, they will serve the evil, masquerading as good, with all the rationality they possess. That’s why it is so critically essential that there be a robust philosophical foundation for my life is mine as a fundamental moral precept, and Rand is absolutely correct that religion in general, and Judeo-Christianity in particular is, to say it as diplomatically as possible, not suitable as such. My pessimism largely stems from the widespread failure – or refusal – to comprehend this, especially among those who are sincere advocates for liberty. Once one accepts one is not an end in one’s self, that one is only a means towards the ends of God, one has no fundamental defense against becoming a means towards the ends of Big Brother.
Pingback: Irreversible Damage – The U.S. Economy Cannot Be Repaired, by Brandon Smith | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC
Pingback: In A Battle Between Trump And The Federal Reserve, Who Really Wins? by Brandon Smith | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC