Latest Gold PriceCome here to get the latest gold prices all in one place

0 Big Data Exposed

James Corbett to Gold Prices — Tags:  

Pinocchio is the story of a marionette that dreams of becoming a real boy. He wishes upon a star, proves himself selfless, brave and true, and a kind fairy grants him his heart's one true desire.

When the history of the 21st century is written, it could very well be the story of real boys and girls that willingly become marionettes. They stare blankly into their smartphones, prove themselves selfish, cowardly and false, and a group of technocrats puppeteer them.

Allow me to illustrate: You are a white, middle class American woman in your late 20s. You are active on Facebook, where you have a lot of friends, but you spend most of your time interacting with your sister, your boyfriend, and your BFFs from college. You watch a lot of 90s teen dramas but specifically skip the episode of Felicity where she cuts her hair. You work at a dental office in a mid-rise commercial building and eat lunch at the diner in the strip mall next door every Thursday. You used to fly home for Thanksgiving and Christmas every year on United, but you recently switched to Southwest. You like ballroom dancing on the weekends. Your last three purchases were a patchwork and quilting magazine, a 32 lb. bag of chicken-flavor puppy chow, and a silk tie (a present for your father's birthday). You are agreeable but not very conscientious and you are prone to worry.

Et voilà. Your specially-crafted toothpaste advertisement is served.

Sound like the future of advertising? Wrong. It's already happening thanks to Acxiom, Oracle Data Cloud, Epsilon, and a host of other data analytic marketing companies you've never heard of.

But you may have heard of one member of this new breed of Big Data-driven marketing firms in recent months: Cambridge Analytica. They're the company that Trump employed to out-spin the Hillary campaign, or so we have been told ad nauseam by the strangely PR-like coverage of the firm that has been showered on them by the corporate lamestream #fakenews media since the end of last year's (s)election cycle.

They bill themselves as a "data driven services" company that specializes in "data integration" and "audience segmentation" delivering "psychographic analysis" to drive targeted advertising campaigns or profile and influence potential voters. Or, in the significantly less buzzword-laden language of their company mission statement:

"To deliver Data-Driven Behavioral Change by understanding what motivates the individual and engaging with target audiences in ways that move them to action."

No, that's not a typo, that's a selling point. The firm uses the slogan "Data driven behavior change" in their online promotional videos and offers the image of balls being directed down an inclined plane to illustrate how they can shape people's behaviors along predetermined paths using data and marketing.

The company's CEO, Andrew Nix, likes to go on stage at various conferences and deliver spine-chillingly Orwellian pronouncements about how Big Data is helping Cambridge Analytica create detailed psychological profiles of millions of unsuspecting "cosumers" and "voters." These profiles can then be used to deliver individually-targeted messages to each of those millions of people, whether that message is used to sell a certain brand of toothpaste or generate interest in a certain political candidate.

If you watch any of Cambridge Analytica's presentations, advertisements or PR spots on the national news (but I repeat myself), you'll see that they like to brag about their ability to combine over 5000 pieces of data that they can collect on any given individual—from what airlines they've flown on to what magazines they're subscribed to and everything else you can possibly imagine—to help create "psychographic" profiles of that person.

Whereas "demographics" is the division of the population into age groups and/or ethnicities, "psychographics" seeks to divide the population up along personality lines. Cambridge Analytica touts an "OCEAN" profile that rates individuals on the rather smearily-defined character traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroses. By rating each individual in a target market on these characteristics, the company can deliver custom-tailored messages that appeal to different people in ways that specifically appeal to them. Thus, someone high on agreeableness and neuroses would be better persuaded to buy toothpaste by preying on their insecurity over their smile while those with higher degrees of openness and conscientiousness would respond to advertising explaining the properties and characteristics of the toothpaste.

The story of Cambridge Analytica is a particularly chilling one, involving secretive hedge-fund billionaires and British military psyops officers who, we are now being told, shaped the political landscape through "data-driven behavior change" to usher in the era of Brexit and Trump. To be sure, there is a fascinating and chilling story to be told there, but that's a story for another time.

The larger story here is the story of Big Data, and it will be familiar to those who are reading this article. The long story short is that we have reached an inflection point in history. Large data broker services have been quietly purchasing and collating thousands of pieces of data on you and everyone you know, and the burgeoning data-driven marketing industry is now weaponizing that data in psychological operations designed to influence your choices, behavior and patterns of thought without you even knowing.

Think of Big Data as a malevolent technocratic Santa Claus: it sees you when you're sleeping, it knows when you're awake, it knows if you've been bad or good (even in advance!), so be good for goodness sake!

Actually, it's worse than that. It doesn't even matter if you're trying to be good (or bad) for whatever sake; the social engineers are now honing their ability to make you want to buy things, do things, vote for or against certain candidates, and otherwise shape your daily thoughts and actions, without your knowledge or consent, by appealing to your individual psychological profile. And instead of running in the other direction, people are in a mad scramble to put even more intrusive data-collection devices in their homes to scoop up every last drop of information about their lives and send it off to corporations they often don't even know exist.

The real boys and girls are uploading their lives to facebook and Twitter and Snapchat and Alexa and every other Big Data collection front. And in the process, they are giving the Big Data puppeteers the strings with which they will be pulled around like so many marionettes.

It's a real question whether there is any way short of living in a cabin in the woods to avoid being scooped up in the Big Data dragnet. But the more fundamental question is whether the real boys and girls will ever realize, or even care, that they are slowly becoming Pinocchio.

0 Ransom, The Test

Bob Rinear to Gold Prices — Tags:  

So, the story goes that some hacker saw in a Wikileaks email, that the NSA had created a Malware, and this hacker gleaned it and unleashed it on the world. Called Ransom-ware, the virus gets in your hard drive and encrypts all your data. It is then useless to you. Then the hacker tells you that for a price, he will send you the key to decrypt all that info and you get your computer back.

This letter isn’t a Public Service Announcement about explaining how to back up your data. It isn’t about running updates and buying good antivirus software. This letter is about realizing something very nasty about our current world. What you just saw with this virus hitting 150 countries and 200K computers, was just a trial run. A warning. A shot across the bow.

First off, let’s consider a few things. In China, ATM’s went dark. Remember all those supposedly paranoid articles I wrote, saying that “What if one day you woke up and the grid was down? No power, no ATM’s, no groceries, etc?” Remember? Well, in a trial run, a lot of people just saw what can happen. Consider this… you have money at the XYZ bank. Or do you? No, what you have is a slip of paper, or an electronic read out that says you have an account with “X” amount of money in it. If the BANKS systems go down, you’re not getting anything. Nothing. Not a penny. Ask the Chinese that day. Thousands couldn’t get a single “Yuan” out of their bank.

In Britain, hospitals went down. Surgeries postponed. Clinic’s closed. It is believed some PEOPLE DIED. All because (supposedly) some shaggy hacker let loose this ransom ware. But there was something telling about this, and you can say I’m being a conspiracy nut…that’s fine. Just ponder it….. first off it attacked Windows XP. That’s an old operating system that MSFT ended true support of. So it wasn’t as if this attack was on the newest or most widely used equipment.

But secondly, they demanded payment in “bitcoin”. Why bitcoin? Well it’s widely known to be pretty anonymous. Without some really high end forensic technology sleuthing, you can’t find out who’s sending or receiving payments. Do you think the CIA, FBI, DHS, DNI, and the other 15 intelligence agencies, along with our friends at the IRS, and of course the Federal reserve and Central bankers…do you think they like the idea of someone being able to be paid without them able to trace you??

So , what if this attack on outdated software, demanding bitcoin wasn’t just some 14 year old kid’s idea? What if the “big players” allowed it to happen ( especially the speed at which it replicated) for a purpose? I find it way too coincidental that following an amazingly blistering run, where bitcoin went from 1400 to 1700 dollars in under a week, a ransomware attack goes out, WORLD WIDE, demanding bitcoin for payment.

Do you suppose that a narrative will come forth suggesting that Bitcoin has to be reined in, because the “bad guys” can use it for nefarious deeds like drugs, hookers, murders and ransom ware? Bet on it. In fact, a “test run” like we just saw kills a lot of birds with one stone. First they can use it to attack bitcoin. Again, notice how this went global. Just like bitcoin is global. Second, by infecting older software, they can force companies to go buy a ton of newer computers and software programs.

Now, here’s the real issue. Whether you like him or hate him, Snowden “told” us a lot of stuff. Even the movie, “Snowden” which is of course “amped up” to be exciting, lays out some truths that either the American population missed, or is too dumbed down to think about. In the movie there’s a part about how they had inserted “kill switches” in virtually all the hardware and software around the world. The idea being that if a country decided not to be our ally, or went rogue or what have you, with the flip of a switch at the NSA, that country goes dark.

That’s dams, trains, airports, cell towers, power stations, electrical grids, banks, everything. Now you can’t call that a conspiracy, because we just saw how the NSA had created a “back door” into Windows XP that could be exploited. Well guess what? That’s amateur stuff. In the last 8 years, virtually everything that comes out of the factory has someone’s kill switch already built in. Hidden malware in software. Remember the furor over the TV’s that were spying on people and sending info back to Samsung and vizeo? LOL, well if a stupid TV can come out of the factory with microphones and camera’s in them and send info back to the manufacturer…don’t be silly enough to think that every router, every splitter, every control box, every Windows 10, every…everything, is already got a bug in it.

The question is…who’s in control of the bug? The NSA? Sure. But are they the ONLY ones? What about say… the Mossad? Maybe they’ve got some control bugs planted? Or how about the UK’s MI5? Think their intelligence could have some kill switch/malware hidden in devices around the world? I think you’d be childish not to.

Folks, we all think of war as bombs and tanks and fast planes that give Pentagon geeks all forms of war porn. But war doesn’t have to be waged with bombs. Cyber war can kill just as well as bombs, and doesn’t take out the infrastructure. Viruses, Phishing scams in Email’s, etc, are just the low rung of the ladder. Embedded kill switches in every Window’s computer? Now you’re talking big trouble.

Ya know how you’ll be sitting there and all of a sudden you get the dreaded “Microsoft needs to update, don’t turn off your computer?” They just hit out of the blue. Well imagine the MILLIONS of windows computers out there and if one day they all said “Microsoft has been told to disable Windows.” And it went dark. For good. How do you think things would look around your town? Not so hot.

I’m beyond trying to scare you all. This isn’t science fiction, it’s real. The developments at the military departments pertaining to artificial intelligence is growing exponentially. The Internet can at the very same time be the 8th wonder of the world, and the most dangerous thing we’ve ever created. Watch Snowden the movie. There’s a lot of truth that they let go in that movie, more than I’d have imagined they’d allow.

0 The Struggle For Health Freedom

James Corbett to Gold Prices — Tags:  

In an age where women are being arrested for holding signs warning drivers about speed traps up ahead, police across the country are swooping in to shut down children’s lemonade stands, and new traveling VIPR teams are bringing that special brand of TSA tyranny to the treets of America, it is perhaps a morbid speculation to ponder which particular aspect of modern American life would cause the founding fathers to spin in their graves the most vigorously.

But it is not idle speculation, after all, and if the respect for individual liberty that the country was supposedly founded upon means anything at all, surely the axe of tyranny must necessarily be striking closer or further from the root of the tree of liberty with each swipe of its blade.

“Freedom” is a word that has been so abused in the modern era that it is difficult to remember that it is not just a campaign slogan or a nebulous item that causes ISIS/Russian/Korean boogeymen to hate us. It is an ideal for which men have fought and died, an ideal that for the vast majority of human existence was almost literally unthinkable.

In the earliest civilizations, the pharaohs and emperors were worshiped as gods on earth. In these societies, life was nasty, brutish and short, and most of it was spent performing back-breaking labour in the service of another. For many, as in Imperial China, for instance, the greatest position that the average person could obtain was that of court eunuch, permitting them access to the Forbidden City and all the unimaginable riches of the imperial court; riches they could see, but never partake in. To the inhabitants of this era, speaking of freedom and the natural rights of men and women would have been to speak in a foreign and untranslatable tongue.

In the Middle Ages, things were hardly any better. Society was pictured as a beehive, with a rigidly defined and divinely-appointed order. At the very top was the king, appointed by God himself to rule over the kingdom. Below that, the nobility, clerics and scholars. Below them, the knights and warrior class. And at the bottom, the vast majority lived as peasants, scraping out a subsistence living from the sweat of their labour. In this era, too, to talk of the freedom of the individual would be to propose a concept that could scarcely be comprehended.

It wasn’t until the invention of Gutenberg’s movable type printing press and the spread of Enlightenment ideas throughout Europe in the 17th century that our modern conception of freedom began to be articulated. John Locke in particular was one of the key inspirations for Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, who formulated the idea of government by consent and postulated the right of life, liberty and property. In Locke’s philosophy, private property is derived from labour, the principle being that, as we own our bodies, so too do we own the products of the labour that we perform with that body.

But now, that most basic form of freedom–the freedom to do what we like with our own bodies, and the attendant freedom from outside coercion by others–is under assault at every level. [see this and this and this]

Like so many other tyrannies, this particular form of oppression, too, has been sold to the public in the name of “safety.” In this case, supposed concerns over the safety of foods and medical treatments have given rise to large, powerful bureaucratic agencies like the FDA that act as regulators. These bodies have been given broad legislative and judicial powers in the name of creating a regulatory framework for the country as a whole, powers that by their very nature are inherently tyrannical.

Bodies like the FDA are worrying because they have been granted broad powers to regulate what people can or cannot do with their bodies. The so-called self-proclaimed authorities are increasingly claiming the power to regulate and restrict the sale of alternative medicines, homegrown organic foods, and even raw milk. Even worse, they are increasingly attempting to cross the line into medical martial law by prepping the public to accept invasive medical procedures with a growing insistence on mandatory vaccinations.

Most worrying of all, however, is how the federal government is actively working behind the scenes to cede away these powers to even less accountable international institutions in which the ordinary citizen has no say whatsoever.

The principle of health freedom is really the underlying principle of freedom generally: that I own my body, and that no presumed governmental authority wearing whatever hat or badge can force me into ceding that ownership to them. Whether that be the freedom to drink raw milk or the freedom from being shot up with Big Pharma’s latest untested vaccine, it’s a freedom that touches each and every person on the planet’s life in the most personal way possible. And for that reason, the fight for health freedom is the key battleground in the war for individual liberty.

Echoing the words of George W. Bush, the enemy do hate us for our freedoms. But the enemy is not who we are told they are.

0 The Greater Fool

Bob Rinear to Gold Prices — Tags:  

I continue to do a fair amount of radio interviews, and Tuesday I had the distinct pleasure of chatting with my friend and radio host Phil Mikan out of Connecticut. We were talking markets, manipulation, pensions, economy, etc, but there was one particular issue that I wanted to stress to his listeners.

Phil had mentioned that his own mom worked at a large insurance company and over the years she had invested into the company’s stock, and the company would also match her contribution with another share. Over the years, the combination of her own buying, along with the company donating shares, combined with the dividends the stock paid… created a nice supplement to her retirement.

Well there’s a sneaky word in there that you just don’t hear of like you did 20, 30, 40 years ago. Dividends. Now I’m sure most of you know what a dividend is, but just for “flow” let’s take a look.

A dividend is defined as a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders. Usually these payouts are made in cash (called “cash dividends”), but sometimes companies will also distribute stock dividends, whereby additional stock shares are distributed to shareholders

Okay, so let’s say you take a company like GM which is trading around 34 bucks. Well, they pay about 1.54 dollars on an annual basis, per share you might own. That’s about a 4.2% return on the price of the stock. Now consider if you had bought GM many years back, and over those years, you added to your holdings and maybe even used your dividends to buy more shares? You could have built up quite a nice jackpot.

In our example, if you owned 22 shares of GM stock, at the end of 4 quarters of dividends, you’d have enough money to buy an additional share. And yes that share would pay you a dividend. Let’s expand on that for a minute. Let’s suppose you took 10K dollars last year, and bought GM stock. You’d have about 294 shares. But, because each of those shares pays you 1.54 in dividends, you’d have “taken in” 452 bucks. Now you could save that money, or…you could go right in and buy another 13 shares of stock. Then you’d have 307 shares of stock, paying you 472 dollars for the year in dividends.

Do that over and over each year for 20 years and you can see, you’ve built a very nice nest egg. Many hundreds of thousands of folks have done just that over the years since WWII to create one heck of a nice contribution to their social security retirement. That my friends is investing with a purpose.

But then there’s the stocks with NO dividends. Hundreds of companies with names you know, pay no dividends at all. EBAY, Amazon, Google, DirecTV, Micron, F five, etc. etc. Enter the “greater fool theory”.

The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price.

If you buy a stock with no dividend payment, then the only way you can realize a return on your money, is if you are able to sell it to someone else, for more money in the future. That’s it. You’re looking to get out with a profit and the buyer is looking to get in, and hopefully sell it even higher.

The question then of course becomes…why would you want to invest in a stock that pays no dividend? Well, your hope is that the company has decided that instead of distributing the profits to shareholders as dividends, it will reinvest that money into more growth of the core company. Then, as the company makes more and more money, more investors will buy it and the price will rise. But again…why?

Hope. Yes, it’s hope. The hope in buying a company that pays no dividends, is that it will grow and be so successful, that its “intrinsic” value is so great that there’s always the hope that they’ll come out with a one time enormous dividend payment.

Consider Berkshire. Buffet has only paid out ONE dividend in all these years. Yet in 1990 it was 5, 000 dollars per share, and today it is 245,000 dollars per share. Investors buy it “knowing” it holds intrinsic value because Berkshire owns airlines and shipping companies and rail lines, etc. Tens of billions worth of good reliable companies.

They have like 90 billion in cash. Every holder of Berkshire stock hopes that one day Buffet will take the wrong med’s and dole out a 50 thousand dollar per share dividend. Between the safety of its intrinsic holdings, and the “hope” of a one day one time divvy payout, investors love Berkshire. They simply don’t get paid for holding it.

The problem is that for every Berkshire, or Amazon, or google that doesn’t pay out earnings via dividends, is a thousand companies that don’t pay dividends, but don’t rise either. In other words, if you’re going to hold a company that doesn’t pay dividends, it had better have something going for it. A unique product, a barrier to entry, a management team from Heaven, the hottest thing since sliced bread…something to justify the idea that someone else might buy it from you at a higher price.

If you’re simply trading stocks for swings, none of this matters. Stocks go up and down and catching breakouts, double bottoms, pendant formations, all adds up to short term gains. But if you’re a “set it and forget it” sort of folk, I’d always err to the side of wanting to get paid to hold my position.

Look at Ford. It’s 11 bucks a share and pays out 60 cents a year in dividends. That’s 5%. That’s multiples higher than your local bank pays on deposits in CD’s. Ford shouldn’t go out of business. Yes it’s stock could go lower, but it probably won’t stop paying a dividend. That’s at least the type of long term investment I could agree with. A long standing company with a relatively low stock price and a 5% divvy. Not bad. But to buy the XYZ company that pays no dividends, is in a highly competitive field, and has shaky management? No thanks, I’ll trade it, but I won’t “set it and forget it”.

That would be the ultimate example of the Greater fool theory. Don’t go there.

 You remember the SPP, don't you? The attempt to create a North American Union by harmonizing the border controls, environmental and business regulations and security forces of Canada, the US and Mexico?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report caught wind of it, publicized its secret meetings, and organized widespread resistance to expose the plot (and expose police provocateuring in the process).

Remember SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA, the attempt by globalist corporations and totalitarian control freaks to crack down on the free and open internet under cover of copyright policing?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report warned you about them and the masses organized to derail them at the last second.

Remember the TPP, the attempt to create a free trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific that would have enriched the globalist corporate elite at the expense of everyone else?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report sounded the alarm in the early days of the agreement and explained the finished deal in plain English when it finally emerged from the swamp, whipping up a populist backlash that ended the deal.

Remember the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement? You know, the all-encompassing agreement between the WTO's 164 members (97% of global GDP) that has been hailed as "the most significant multilateral trade deal concluded since the establishment of the World Trade Organisation?" The one that implements the globalists' wet dream of harmonizing export and import processes and trade infrastructure among the majority of the world's population?

No? Doesn't ring a bell? Hmmm...I wonder why that is?

Don't worry. If you're only hearing about the agreement now, it's not because you weren't paying attention. It's because almost no one was paying attention, including me. If the daily flurry of craziness that is the Trump-era news cycle has ever left you wondering what you're being distracted from, here is one answer. It's called the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, and it just entered into force in February.

That's right, it's in effect as we speak. No time to familiarize yourself with this one. No time to organize opposition. No time to examine the implications. It's already here.

For those of us who haven't heard about the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) before, here's the crash course:

Part of the long-fought, arduous, hotly contested negotiations surrounding the WTO's so-called "Bali Package" trade agreement of 2013, the TFA specifically aims to reduce bureaucratic red tape and regulatory uncertainty around trade issues between WTO member nations, by, among other things, harmonizing customs procedures, removing delays on clearance and movement of goods, and reducing fees, formalities and roadblocks to legal recourse for importers and exporters.

Or, in the official gobbledygook of the WTO's PR-ese:

"The TFA contains provisions for expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit. It also sets out measures for effective cooperation between customs and other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues. It further contains provisions for technical assistance and capacity building in this area. The Agreement will help improve transparency, increase possibilities to participate in global value chains, and reduce the scope for corruption."

The WTO's own 2015 study about the agreement shows that it will reduce the trading costs of member nations by 14.3%, reduce average import times for goods by a day and a half and export times by two days, increase global merchandise exports by $1 trillion, and make blind lepers walk on water again. Or something like that.

So what's not to love?

Well, in the broader sense this agreement can be seen as a life-saver for the WTO, whose very raison d'être as a type of global governing body for world trade has been called into question by the fact that, before the TFA, it hadn't actually managed to ratify a single trade agreement in its 22-year history.

That's right, the so-called "Doha Development Round" of talks that the body began in 2001—its "ambitious effort to make globalization more inclusive and help the world's poor," to quote the Rothschild-mouthpiece, The Economist—has been ongoing for a decade and a half and currently remains in limbo after years of rancorous debate. Even the much-ballyhooed Bali Package was just the framework for what has now become the TFA, meaning that this agreement has single-handedly brought the WTO back from the brink of irrelevance that the NAFTA, the TTIP and TPP, and numerous other regional, multilateral and bilateral trade agreements have pushed it towards.

But more specifically, the TFA is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with globalization: Under cover of "development" and "trade," and with a lot of flowery rhetoric about helping the poorest of the poor and facilitating global cooperation, this agreement in fact does little but penalize the poorest countries by forcing them to adopt standards and practices that are as expensive and difficult to implement as they are useless to local industries, farmers and laborers. At the same time, it further erodes local autonomy by forcing almost the entirety of the planet to adopt the same standards and regulations on imports and exports. And, to top it all off, it is the backbone upon which backdoor implementations of various unpopular policies and ideas, from regional trade agreements to the cashless control grid, will be built.

As the Business Standard notes: "This deal will not only resuscitate the WTO, whose relevance was fast eroding due to proliferation of free-trade agreements, but will also revive multilateralism in global trade. Most important, it demonstrates that trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs -- they are also about making trade easier, whether through dovetailing domestic regulations, or through easing actual paperwork."

This is an attempt not at a trade deal in the traditional sense, but at a reformulation of the idea of a "trade agreement" as an act of cross-border regulatory harmonization.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the agreement includes a mandate on electronic payments: "Each Member shall, to the extent practicable, adopt or maintain procedures allowing the option of electronic payment for duties, taxes, fees and charges collected by customs incurred upon importation and exportation." The measure, fairly innocuous by itself, is yet another attempt to normalize the mandating of cashless payments in international trade. But it is supplemented by other unaccountable global governmental bodies like the UN's Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, which, along with the usual Global Goals-y/Climate Change-y/Regional Coordination-y globalist mandates, also coordinates technical cooperation on trade issues, including E-payments and E-purchasing.

And when I say global, I really do mean global. There are no virtuous Chinese messiahs who are valiantly fighting off these insidious global processes, or Russian saviors who can save us from the big bad globalists, or Indian gurus who will protect us from the onslaught. Not only are all five BRICS members themselves vassal states of the WTO behemoth, but the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, yet another acronymed head of the United Nations hydra) has been hard at work promoting the Trade Facilitation Agreement as the "key to unlocking trade potential along OBOR" (which, for those without their special-issued globalist decoder ring, is an acronym for the "One Belt, One Road" initiative of China that we talked about last week).

So cross the Trade Facilitation Agreement off your list of worries. It has already arrived, and it arrived (as do all the most insidious global governmental structures and deals) not with a bang or even a whimper but a silent, self-congratulatory smile and a knowing nod among the globalist jet set. This is how the real structures of global government will be set up: Not in the blazing noon-day sun of publicity, not with fanfare and protest and tumult, but in quiet, backroom deals reached out of sight and out of mind of the general public.

So, the logical question to ask is: What are they working on next?

Powered by Yahoo! Answers