[hydrogonian]

Saudi Aramco IPO Could Raise $106 Billion for Wealth Fund

Quote:

Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund could receive $106 billion in cash from the sale to the public of a 5 percent stake in oil giant Aramco’s parent company, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute.

Fitch downgrades Saudi Arabia

Quote:

U.S. ratings agency Fitch has downgraded Saudi Arabia and kept its outlook on the oil-producing country as negative as the low price of oil continues to take its toll.

In a note issued Tuesday, Fitch dropped its credit rating from AA to AA-, warning that the low price of oil, which the ratings agency expects to continue for some time, will have "major negative implications for Saudi Arabia's fiscal and external balances."

[hydrogonian]

Obama to decide on declassifying 9/11 documents within 60 days

Quote:

“You believe that support came from Saudi Arabia?” CBS reporter Steve Croft asked.

"Substantially," (Bob) Graham (Former Senator FL.-D) responded.

"And when we say, 'the Saudis,' you mean the government, the -- rich people in the country? Charities?" Kroft pressed.

"All of the above," Graham confirmed.

Given the press, putting the screws to the Saudis seems all but a done deal to me.

[thoughtgypsy]

Following the political controversy over Saudi's involvement with 9/11, there has been a shake up in global finance, especially if you read between the lines.

It starts with the recent actions against Deutsche Bank. For years there has been a great controversy over the massive rehypothecation of gold, to the point where "paper gold" being traded was many, many multiples of the actual physical gold in existence. Many financial experts believed that the price of gold was being suppressed in order to bolster faith in fiat currencies and drive money into other investments. It was occasionally confirmed by whistleblowers, but often banks were given slaps on the wrist and it was largely kept out of the news.

It was thought that western finance was behind the price rigging, as the lack of demand for gold would mean increased faith in their insolvent currencies. Now, in an apparent twist, US prosecutors are going after DB for gold price rigging, and in a settlement, DB agrees to help implicate other banks which were involved. This is the opposite of what I'd expect to happen.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14...l-settleme

Another bank facing pressure is JPMorgan. The Fed is grilling them, over which their main concern is their amount of foreign held assets:

Quote:

Apparently, the Federal regulators believe JPMorgan Chase has a problem with the “location,” “size and positioning” of its liquidity under its current plan. The April 12 letter to JPMorgan Chase addressed that issue as follows:

“JPMC does not have an appropriate model and process for estimating and maintaining sufficient liquidity at, or readily available to, material entities in resolution…JPMC’s liquidity profile is vulnerable to adverse actions by third parties.”

The regulators expressed the further view that JPMorgan was placing too much “reliance on funds in foreign entities that may be subject to defensive ring-fencing during a time of financial stress.” The use of the term “ring-fencing” suggests that the regulators fear that foreign jurisdictions might lay claim to the liquidity to protect their own financial counterparty interests or investors.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-15...edia-yawns

Speaking of foreign assets, China announced that they will be expanding the use of the SDR (The IMF Special Drawing Rights, a trading instrument tied to the value of a basket of currencies) within their domestic economy. This will further increase the volume of trade done in Yuan worldwide.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14...b-and-gold

China just also flooded it's economy with a record amount (over $1T) of social spending: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-15...t-new-debt

Recall the Fed's letter to JPM. JPM has an incredibly large derivatives exposure, much, much larger than the assets that they maintain for collateral. In a time of crisis, they could be easily wiped out. Considering their interconnectedness to the rest of the US banking sector, JPM could take much of the US, perhaps even much of western banking along with it. Perhaps China is stoking the fire.

Stormclouds on the horizon.

[NASA Test Pilot]

This was from a PM last week and considering what has transpired this week and what will happen next week when the Shanghai gold exchange begin operations, I thought that I would post it. Feel free to ignore my suggestions in the first few paragraphs, the second half is what I would encourage you to examine and think about. The reason that there are Chinese SSBN´s of the U.S. west coast and Russian jets flying over U.S. Naval vessels is not on accident. Geo-politically, there is a lot of posturing and not so subtle messages being sent.

XXX,

That is great that you have no debt, keep it that way when and if you get a house, try to make a large down payment and pay it off as soon as practical. I do not think that XX% is over weighted for your age given today´s world. I would be AA-BB% in your position; I actually have slightly more, but I am older with enough liquid for decades. The question would be what percentage is physical and what percentage are mining stocks. Mining companies are a concerning now especially when you consider how they are diluting their stocks. As time goes by consider having your gold stored in multiple countries (other than where you have your residence, travel documents, or work. As for cash, what percentage do you have? Of this percentage what percentage is in physical cash and what is electronic in banks? Furthermore, how many currencies is your cash distributed. I am about X% across Y currencies, in each currency it is about A% cash, B% 1´s and 0´s. The point is to decrease your currency risks. I expect to lose 40-60% (of the C.D%) within a 6 month timeframe if there is a meltdown and world-wide capital controls. I do not want to lose any, but I am prepared and the losses are acceptable to me based on how I have been living my life for the past decade and how I will continue to do so for the next decade.

How about assets, I do not want details, but what percentage is it compared to your total (I include houses, land, planes, boats, cars and a few others)?

Lastly would be your paper investments which would include money markets, bonds, stocks, etc. What percentage are dividend paying (stocks) and income stream from bonds, etc.?

The countries I am invested in are the countries where I would buy (farm) land or have a house. This depends on where you want to be. I would not look at them as investments (as a house is a depreciable), rather as a place to live, rent or simply have as a tangible asset other than PM´s. I would also keep 2-3% of your PM´s in each of those countries as a hard back up with the remaining PM´s spread across multiple countries other than where you have your residency, travel documents, or income stream. With regard to cash in various countries, I would store it in large bills and consider using major currencies at first like U.S. Dollar, Euro, Pound, Yen, Yuan and let the percentages change moderately in terms of 1´s and 0´s if you have concerns.

I have no faith in the markets as I believe they are almost entirely manipulated. I am confident that I could make money, but it would take too much of my time and I do not want to deal with fraud. I started to do forensic accounting (as a hobby) company by company in 1998-1999 and I did not like what I saw and moved everything out of the markets. I lost nothing when others lost big. I kid you not when I say, that I saw what was coming in 2003-2004 (yes before 2005) that happened in 2007-2008, I lost nothing and was on the ocean in 2006 with things set up for my life. I left a hugely lucrative corporate position because I saw and see what is coming. It is not gloom and doom, but there is going to be a storm and many will suffer.

Asia, with China at the center will be the place to be to make money long term over the next 2 decades, then perhaps shifting back to the US after Chinese capital investment in the US and the proliferation of robotics over the next 1-2 decades. If I were young and it was about money first then I would be in 1) Singapore, 2) Hong Kong, 3) Shanghai.

Russia might be a consideration after 2020, I would need to see what happens with the development of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), Yuan swap facilities, the Chinese Cross-border Inter-bank Payment System (CIPS) which came on line last Monday and is fully operational today. See this link from the People´s Bank of China from October 2015 and expect another one of these within a month.

http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/130721/2963649/index.html


On 25th March 2016, CIPS signed an MoU (memorandum of Understanding) with SWIFT. This means that the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication which links 209 countries) system and dollars are not going to be needed for trade, banking, bonds, stocks, etc. This is one of the pillars or platforms that is a foundation for an eventual gold-back trade note. Interesting Obama wanted an emergency meeting with Yellen today (Update for posting, she also had another meeting on this Monday and Tuesday behind close doors with both the President and Vice-president, then another meeting on Tuesday and there was a third meeting on Wednesday with some others). As a side note, SWIFT is a cooperative society under Belgian law owned by its member financial institutions.

If the Shanghai Gold Exchanges begins pricing gold in Yuan and other currencies, that will be the second signal and then new institutions like ABX come on line and start sourcing gold to various parties. When these happen and Russia almost completely abandons the dollar, watch for them to have their version of CIPS (which is already developed and waiting) come on line. After this, and assuming that their ties with Germany maintain moderate to strong (which I expect) they will increase their economic power and that will be the time to invest in Russia; particularly in energy and mining. I have stated on the Geo-political thread that I would look for this in 2020 (it could be a year earlier, but I deal with things on enormous timelines and a decade is small and 1-2 years is extremely short).

As for India, that one is more difficult. I would watch for what happens with them and Iran in terms of their bilateral trade. If it goes more oil for gold (via Turkey or directly) as well as using CIPS and there are no increased hostilities with Pakistan (I expect increased hostilities as part of dollar hegemony counter moves) then India would be a consideration. The next question would be in what areas.

I should write something for the forum, but have not had the opportunity as I am getting ready to set sail this month. Actually my life is great and I am thrilled each day. Sure some days are better than others but it is like the difference between have sex with an 8 one day, a 9 another and a mythical 10 on occasion; when having sex with a sexy 8 is a relatively bad day, there is nothing to complain about as I have it good.

If you think that this would be helpful to the forum, give me your thoughts and I may post parts.

NTP

P.S. As an addition this week Deutsche Bank is coming forward with involvement in Silver manipulation. This is getting out in the open and there will be both legal, political, as well as Geo-political ramifications. Gold will not be far behind.

[thoughtgypsy]

Saudi Arabia Threatens To Liquidate Its Treasury Holdings If Congress Probes Its Role In Sept 11 Attacks

Quote:

Back in January, when the market was watching in shocked silence as oil prices were crashing to decade lows and as concerns emerged that Saudi Arabia may need to commence selling its vast, if unquantified, USD reserves, we wrote a post titled "Attention Finally Turns To Saudi Arabia's "Secret" US Treasury Holdings" where we noted something very surprising: whereas we do know that Saudi Arabia is the owner of the world's third largest USD reserves their actual composition remains as a secret, because while the US discloses the explicit Treasury holdings of all other nations, Saudi Arabia's holdings, for some unknown reason, are not officially disclosed.

"It’s a secret of the vast U.S. Treasury market, a holdover from an age of oil shortages and mighty petrodollars," Bloomberg wrote of Saudi Arabia’s US Treasury holdings.

"As a matter of policy, the Treasury has never disclosed the holdings of Saudi Arabia, long a key ally in the volatile Middle East, and instead groups it with 14 other mostly OPEC nations including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Nigeria,” Bloomberg goes on to note, adding that the rules are different for almost everyone else. Although Saudi Arabia's "secret" is protected by "an unusual blackout by the U.S. Treasury Department," for more than a hundred other countries, from China to the Vatican, the Treasury provides a detailed breakdown of how much U.S. debt each holds."

So who does know how much US paper the Saudis are sitting on? Well, the Saudis of course,"a handful of Treasury officials," and some bureaucrats at the Fed, Bloomberg says, noting that “for everyone else, it’s a guessing game."

Yes, a “guessing game,” but one that will very soon have profound consequences for markets and for geopolitics.

We closed with a simple, if suddenly very prophetic question:

"who would be the new patron saint of the US Treasury Department in the event the Saudis drawdown all of their reserves and decide to diversify away from USD assets... Put differently, who will monetize the US deficit if relations between Washington and Riyadh hit the skids over Iran?"
It is this question that has suddenly reemerged with a bang, and could rock the US administration to its core as what until recently was a "fringe conspiracy theory" is suddenly exposed as an all too unpleasant fact, and becomes the biggest political scandal to rock the U.S. in years, in the process maybe even crushing the friendly diplomatic relations the U.S. has held for years with its biggest Mid-East ally, Saudi Arabia.

* * *

First, a quick tangent: we have been greatly surprised by the reemergence of the topic of September 11 in recent weeks, and specifically the taboo - in official circles - issue whether there was a "Saudi connection" in the biggest terrorist attack on US soil. Just last weekend, out of the blue, 60 Minutes held segment on the "28 pages" that were classified in the Congressional investigative report into 9/11 - pages that allegedly confirm the Saudi connection.

To be sure, Saudi officials have long denied that the kingdom had any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and the 9/11 Commission found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” But critics have noted that the commission’s narrow wording left open the possibility that less senior officials or parts of the Saudi government could have played a role. Suspicions have lingered, partly because of the conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.

Those conclusions, contained in 28 pages of the report, still have not been released publicly. It was the surprising rekindled focus on these 28 pages in recent days that suggested that something may have been afoot.

Something was.

* * *

In a stunning report by the NYT, Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Or mostly Congress, because Obama has remained steadfast in his support of his Wahhabi petrodollar overlords, and has been busy lobbying Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.



Deceased Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud presents
Barack Obama with the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit

By way of background, the Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

Suddenly Saudi Arabia is panicking: its response - if the US does pass this bill it would liquidate hundreds of billion in U.S. denominated assets, and perhaps as much as $750 billion in US Treasurys (the NYT's estimate of Saudi Treasury holdings).

The NYT rports that none other than Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, "telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts."

* * *

This stunning threat has caught America off guard, because until now it had largely been speculated that not the Saudis but China would use the "liquidation of Treasurys" as a bargaining chip. As it turns out, Saudi Arabia was the first.

To be sure, the Saudis whose budget deficit has soared in the past year as a result of collapsing oil prices, would stand to benefit from monetizing their US reserves. According to many, it is only a matter of time anyway. However, a dramatic, immediate liquidation would likely spark a market panic. Outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is far less concerned about the market impact of a Saudi liquidation, and far more worried what a real inquiry into the Saudi role of Sept.11 would reveal (and who it would implicate) and as a result is building strawman arguments that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas. In fact, as the NYT reports, "Obama has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot."

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

Stunning indeed, and yet that's precisely who the "U.S." president sides with when attempting to get to the bottom of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Incidentally, Obama will arrive in Riyadh on Wednesday for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials. It is unclear whether the dispute over the Sept. 11 legislation will be on the agenda for the talks.



President Obama at a Sept. 11 ceremony in 2015. The Obama administration
argues that the bill would put Americans at legal risk overseas.

* * *

The Saudi threat comes as the dispute comes as bipartisan criticism is growing in Congress about Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, for decades a crucial American ally in the Middle East and half of a partnership that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers. Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, families of the Sept. 11 victims have used the U.S. court system to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and charities liable because of what the plaintiffs charged was Saudi financial support for terrorism. These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.

It is this law that the proposed Senate Bill intends to overturn; it is this Bill that Saudi Arabia is suddenly in arms over.

And it is the Saudis that Obama is siding over instead of his own people.

But of course, Obama can't openly come out and say he would rather keep the truth of Saudi involvement buried than push for a probe, so Obama administration officials counter that "weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on March 4, Anne W. Patterson, an assistant secretary of state, and Andrew Exum, a top Pentagon official on Middle East policy, told staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops and civilians could be in legal jeopardy if other nations decide to retaliate and strip Americans of immunity abroad. They also discussed the Saudi threats specifically, laying out the impacts if Saudi Arabia made good on its economic threats.
In other words, the logic is that if the US pursues a full-blown inquiry into the Saudi role behind 9/11, the US itself would be subject to a comparable stripping of immunity - with respect to alleged U.S. terrorist attacks - and "create a terrible precedent." In effect, the US government is defending its position by saying that if one can get to the bottom of Saudi terrorism in the U.S., the world may next learn about U.S. terrorism across the globe.

And that just can't be allowed to happen.

Meanwhile, even as Obama fights tooth and nail to protect the Saudi's dirty laundry, the administration pretends to side with US citizens: "John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that the administration stands by the victims of terrorism, “especially those who suffered and sacrificed so much on 9/11." It just refuses to reveal those who are truly responsible for their death.

* * *

But back to the Saudi (mostly hollow) threat of dumping US Treasuries should the proposed Bill be passed, which indeed is nothing more than just that, especially since the Fed or BOJ would be delighted to have found a willing seller who has as much as three quarter of a trillion in US paper lying around.

Edwin M. Truman, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he thought the Saudis were most likely making an “empty threat.” Selling hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets would not only be technically difficult to pull off, he said, but would also very likely cause global market turmoil for which the Saudis would be blamed.

Moreover, he said, it could destabilize the American dollar — the currency to which the Saudi riyal is pegged.

“The only way they could punish us is by punishing themselves,” Mr. Truman said.

Well, they would also punish the Fed, because suddenly the Petrodollar would re-emerge as the main driving force behind the value of the greenback.

* * *

And yet, perhaps the Saudis have reason to panic: the Senate bill is an anomaly in a Congress fractured by bitter partisanship, especially during an election year. It is sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. It has the support of an unlikely coalition of liberal and conservative senators, including Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. It passed through the Judiciary Committee in January without dissent.

“As our nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists becomes even more important,” Mr. Cornyn said last month.

It is almost as if Congress has decided to end the long-running alliance the U.S. has had with Saudi Arabia, despite the bitter protests of the administration; it has decided to use the Sept.11 disclosure as its own bargaining chip.

To be sure, as the NYT notes, the alliance with Saudi Arabia has frayed in recent years as the White House has tried to thaw ties with Iran — Saudi Arabia’s bitter enemy— in the midst of recriminations between American and Saudi officials about the role that both countries should play in the stability of the Middle East. But the administration has supported Saudi Arabia on other fronts, including providing the country with targeting intelligence and logistical support for its war in Yemen. The Saudi military is flying jets and dropping bombs it bought from the United States — part of the billions of dollars in arms deals that have been negotiated with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations during the Obama administration.

The war has been a humanitarian disaster and fueled a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, leading to the resolution in Congress to put new restrictions on arms deals to the kingdom. Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, one of the resolution’s sponsors and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Congress has been “feckless” in conducting oversight of arms sales, especially those destined for Saudi Arabia.
“My first desire is for our relationship with Saudi Arabia to come with a greater degree of conditionality than it currently does,” he said.

That also appears to be Obama's last desire; while the only desire Saudi Arabia has is to maintain the status quo, one where nobody looks at who pulled the strings behind Sept. 11 and in exchange for which the Saudis would continue dutifully recycling petrodollars, or if they don't get their way, they will simply proceed to launch the biggest liquidation of US Treasurys in history. Or such is their stunning threat..

Which brings us to the original question: why the Saudi panic, and why immediately threaten with the "nuclear option", namely liquidating US Treasurys, if the Saudis have nothing to hide?

The question is, of course, rhetorical.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-16...ess-passes

[NASA Test Pilot]

Saudi Arabia has already turned toward the East and will work with Russia for a Russian-Gulf energy axis, which will primarily feed the Eurasian Trade Zone as OPEC fades in the back ground. This will not be immediate, but will develop over the next decade. The U.S. knows this and wants to nullify the $4 Trillion in U.S. Treasuries that are being held in one of the ESF (Exchange Stabilization Fund) Dark Pool Accounts (DPA). The DPA is not in the name of Saudi Arabia, rather it is in the name of the Saudi Monarchy and the ESF is custodian.

The key for the U.S. Dollar hegemony as it relates to the above is to destabilize Saudi Arabia and remove the Saudi Monarchy. The $4 Trillion will magically disappear from the ESF DPA as the next Saudi government will not be the monarchy and the U.S. Treasuries Bonds are in the name of the Saudi Monarchy. The ESF can then use this for other shenanigans. Destabilizing and removing the Saudi Monarchy will also delay the Russian-Gulf energy axis. I view the 9/11 inquiry is part of the destabilization strategy.

Recall that I mentioned before, and hydrogonian posted recently that it is happening, Saudi Aramco is probably going public as a company. This is part of the Saudi strategy to counter. Another part of the Saudi (Monarchy) short term counter move is to sell off part of the wealth fund (and move it to gold among other things) before they are (possibly) removed from power. The 9/11 inquiry (although there may be truth in it) will be used as cover for the Saudi Monarchy to recover the recycled petro-dollars Treasury Bonds before they are confiscated via (Saudi) change of government. Either way the Saudi Monarchy gets some of their recycled dollars transformed into something that is useful; to them now or in the future whether it is for a return to power or continued social spending in order to maintain the support of the current Saudi citizenry.

With all of the machinations above, keep the idea of U.S. dollar hegemony at the forefront. Kudos to thoughtgypsy for bringing forward the news references.

[Constitution45]

@NASA

Thank you for your analysis, I agree with the rest of the forum that it is very informative and entertaining.

What are your predictions across the Russia CIS region, in terms of ISIS, the collective security treaty organization and of course this situation occurring between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

[thoughtgypsy]

NTP has discussed the steps China is taking to facilitate gold backed trading markets. The following are some articles which provide further background on the history of their actions, along with details which further support his predictions:

China Embraces Gold In Advance Of Post-Dollar Era

Quote:

To challenge the US dollar hegemony and increase its power in the global realm of finance, China has a potent gold strategy. Whilst the State Council is preparing itself for the inevitable decay of the current international monetary system, it has firmly embraced gold in its economy. With a staggering pace the government has developed the Chinese domestic gold market, stimulated private gold accumulation and increased its official gold reserves in order to ensure financial stability and support the internationalisation of the renminbi.

“The outbreak of the crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflect the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system…. The desirable goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run…”

Quote from Governor of the PBOC Zhou Xiaochuan 2009.
In the present zeitgeist we find ourselves on the verge of a shift in the global monetary order. The shocks through the financial complex in 2008 that reaffirmed the innate fragility of the US dollar as the world reserve currency have sparked China to become a vocal proponent of de-Americanization, although its end goal is communicated less clearly. Being the second largest economy of the world but relatively in arrears regarding physical gold reserves, China has a strong motive to surreptitiously work on its gold program until completion. For, if it would be candid in its gold ambitions, the price would significantly run higher, potentially disturbing financial markets and narrowing its window of opportunity to prepare for the next phase.

State Council Rapidly Developed Domestic Gold Market And Stimulated Private Hoarding

China has been infatuated with gold for thousands of years. In the mainland, gold mining and use can be traced back to at least 4,000 years ago, and the metal has always represented economic strength and was regarded as the emperors’ symbol of power. Although the Communist Party of China captured the monopoly in gold trade and heavily restricted private gold possession since 1949, in lockstep with the gradual liberalisation and the ascend of the Chinese economy the state started to develop the domestic gold market in the late seventies, which accelerated in 2002.

A new page was turned when the Gold Armed Police started operating in 1979, not coincidentally a few years after the US detached its dollar, the world reserve currency, from gold. This army division was initially assigned to gold mining exploration and has done so quite fruitfully. Since 1979, Chinese domestic mining output has grown 2,137 % from an annual 20 tonnes to an estimated 467 tonnes in 2015. In 1982, the first steps were taken in reviving China’s gold retail channels. For the first time since 1949 people were allowed to buy jewelry and the China Gold Coin Incorporation started issuing Panda coins. The Peoples Bank Of China (PBOC) continued to be the primary gold dealer that fixed the price and controlled all supply flows.

The real reform of the Chinese gold market was implemented on 30 October 2002 by the launch of the Shanghai Gold Exchange, erected to serve the full liberalisation of the domestic gold market. From that date the fixing of the gold price in China was transmitted from the PBOC to the free market. In 2004, the State Council approved gold as an investment for individuals and the PBOC slowly repelled control over supply flows. The Chinese gold market fiercely rose from its ashes. By 2007 the market was functioning as intended when nearly all gold supply and demand was flowing through the SGE system6. A year later, in 2008, the Shanghai Futures Exchange launched a gold futures contract supplementing existing derivatives at the SGE.

The Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE), which is a subsidiary of the PBOC, is the very core of the Chinese physical gold market. Its infrastructure provides a single liquid exchange overseen by the state, granting all participants a trusty venue that can be efficiently developed and monitored. The mechanics of the Chinese market incentivise nearly all supply and demand to connect within the SGE system. As a consequence, by the amount of gold withdrawn from the vaults of the SGE – data that was published up until December 2015 in the Chinese Market Data Weekly Reports – we could gauge Chinese wholesale gold demand.

After the crisis in 2008, it became apparent in the higher echelons of the Chinese government that the development of the gold market and private accumulation had to accelerate to protect the Chinese economy from looming turmoil. Through state owned banks and media wires the citizenry were stimulated to diversify savings into physical gold. Currently, at Chinese banks, numerous gold saving programs can be entered into, or individuals can open an SGE account and purchase gold directly in the wholesale market.

“Individual investment demand is an important component of China’s gold reserve system, …. Practice shows that gold possession by citizens is an effective supplement to official reserves and is essential for our national financial security.”

Quote by the President of the China Gold Association 2012.
When the gold price came down sharply in April 2013, Chinese gold demand literally exploded as in a once in a lifetime event. In between 22 and 26 April, 117 tonnes of physical gold were withdrawn from the vaults of the SGE.



gold_graph





China has been a gigantic gold buyer ever since. Withdrawals from the vaults of the SGE in 2015 accounted for 2,596 tonnes (90 % of global annual mine output), up from a mere 16 tonnes in 2002. SGE withdrawal data correlates with elevated gold import by China.

Whilst clearly enjoying their bargain purchases, China has established a trend of increasingly obfuscating the true size of its gold demand. Not long ago several reports were released in the mainland that disclosed total gold demand to be the equivalent to SGE withdrawals. Since 2012 these reports have been hidden from public eyes and in January 2016 the SGE ceased publishing withdrawal data10. Although annual SGE withdrawals have exceeded 2,100 tonnes since 2013, what is generally publicised as gold demand is roughly half of this, merely the demand at jewelry shops and banks that excludes direct purchases from individual and institutional clients at the SGE. As a result, the global consensus is that Chinese gold demand is approximately 1,000 tonnes a year though in reality it’s twice this volume.

PBOC Accumulating Gold To Support Renminbi Internationalisation

To free itself from US dollar supremacy and force the sequent monetary system, China’s goal is to internationalise the renminbi. For achieving its target, gold is identified as the key. It is the absolute monetary asset to support the renminbi, the dollars’ Achilles heel and a hedge during monetary stress. Next to the swift progression in the Chinese private gold market we can observe the PBOC is covertly buying gold and has launched the Shanghai International Gold Exchange to prepare renminbi internationalisation.

“For China the strategic mission of gold lies in the support of renminbi internationalization, and so let China become a world economic power…. Gold is both a very honest asset and forms the very material basis for modern fiat currencies…. Gold is the world’s only monetary asset that has no counter party risk, and is the only cross-nation, cross-language … and cross-culture globally recognized monetary asset.

That is why in order for gold to fulfill its destined mission, we must raise our gold holdings a great deal, and do so with a solid plan. Step one should take us to the 4,000 tonnes mark, more than Germany and become number two in the world, next, we should increase step by step towards 8,500 tonnes, more than the US.”

Quote by the President of the China Gold Association 2014.
Not surprisingly, China’s strategy is everything but linear. Let us analyse the State Council’s most recent actions with respect to gold and the internationalisation of the renminbi. In addition to gold accumulation, the State Council has aimed to kick start renminbi internationalisation by having it included into the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) basket of currencies, the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), in 2015. For acceptance, the IMF required openness of China’s international reserves, of which the PBOC hadn’t updated its gold reserves since 2009. Here we found the PBOC stretched between opposing forces; it obviously preferred to hoard gold in concealment not to disturb financial markets, while at the same time it was requested to open its books. In July 2015 the PBOC decided to revise its official gold reserves by 604 tonnes to 1,658 tonnes, which was probably not the whole truth but served both means, as markets barely reacted to the increment – the gold price has not increased since then – and the IMF has granted annexation of the renminbi into the SDR.

How much gold does the PBOC truly hold? Before we make an estimate we must first address the question, how and where does the PBOC buy gold? Some analysts assume the PBOC buys gold in the domestic market at the SGE. According to my research this is not true. My sources in the bullion industry tell me first hand that the PBOC buys gold in the international OTC market using Chinese banks as proxies. And this intelligence fits into the wider analysis, as there are many reasons why the PBOC would not buy gold through the SGE.

A rough estimate suggests the PBOC holds nearly 4,000 tonnes in gold reserves, more than twice the amount they officially disclose. In a quest for any clues we must visit the heart of the gold wholesale market. Data by the London Bullion Market Association points out there have been approximately 1,700 tonnes of monetary gold exported from London between 2011 and 2015. China’s central bank is the foremost suspect for these purchases, given its size and motives, and the tonnage exported from London is consistent with other sources that state the PBOC has bought roughly 500 tonnes a years since 2009. All clues together point to the PBOC holding roughly 4,000 tonnes currently. Although this remains speculation.

More of China’s gold strategy was revealed by the recent launch of the Shanghai International Gold Exchange (SGEI) that offers gold trading in renminbi for clients worldwide, in an attempt by China to strengthen the internationalisation of the renminbi. In itself the SGEI clearly underlines China’s gold ambitions16, but the punch line was added with the launch of the Silk Road Gold Fund in 201517. Led by the SGE(I), the $16 billion fund will boost the gold industry along the Silk Road and in turn “will facilitate gold purchases for the central banks of member states to increase their holdings of the precious metal”, according to the Chinese state press agency Xinhua18. Not only is China trying to persuade all mining and consumption of gold along the Silk Road economic project to be settled through the SGEI in renminbi, additionally the Chinese promote gold as an essential component of central banks’ international reserves going forward.

We must conclude that the State Council views gold as part of the coming international monetary system. Why else does it quickly develop the domestic gold market to be embedded in financial markets, surreptitiously accumulate vast gold reserves and establish a framework to boost gold business on the Eurasian continent around the SGEI? In my view, China contributes significant value to its gold strategy in the shadow of the apparent failure of the current fiat monetary system. And if true, China’s central bank having nearly 4,000 tonnes of gold is well on its way to introduce the next phase.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-16...dollar-era

[NASA Test Pilot]

I tried to give some context with a previous post concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan as it is one of the more tangled geo-political situations on the planet that goes back thousands of years (see post #80 and 81 above) and involves the Russians, Iranians and Turks. This is a tough one to call, but I will give a few thoughts. In general from the Russian and perhaps Iranian long game, it is tied to the Kurdish conflict and resolution. From the current regime in Turkey (which may not necessarily be the Turkish long game), the Kurdish issue is paramount to the current leadership and the way it ties into their geo-strategy is different from Russia or Iran. In addition, Turkey will focus more on Europe under the current regime. Turkey will have a balancing act to do with Russia as Russia is making the Kurdish issue central and Turkey does not want them to do so (although it is a center issue for Turkey).

One of the key antagonists with the Kurds is the current president of Turkey (Erdogan). I posited before (post #14) that he will be taken out of the picture sometime in 2017. In late 2015 he and parts of his family accepted (were bribed) 3 billion dollars to step aside from power (this was by Russian design although the funding was not directly from Russia) in 2016-2017. Early 2016 assessment indicates that Erdogan has switched. He is either double crossing (not wise) or is holding out for more from those in the east. Sources indicate that another 3 billion is being added to the spoils. The major issue with Erdogan is that he envisions himself as man with a divine mission and this often makes things interesting. I give the increased bribe scenario a better than 50-50 chance of being sucessful as Erdogan is currently trying to set himself for a return to power in the future through streamlining his generals.

If Erdogan goes (voluntarily or not-voluntarily) then a Russian backed Kurdish solution is very probable and the area will (relatively) stabilize (in 1-2 generation). If not, expect more pressure on the ancient fulcrum from 4 sides (Russia, Turkey, the U.S. (through Turkey with Erdogan in power or via other avenues if he is not in power), and Iran. In the meantime, Erdogan´s long game is anti-Europe and pro-Muslim via immigration. This is a two edge sword as Turkey is a part of NATO. Iran will play this differently depending on Erodgan as well. Iran should come out as winner in terms of trade and Muslim influence in Europe as well as Turkey, it is a question of how big and this is part of the U.S. problem long term. Iran with a Kurdish state is a gain in the sense of Russia being stronger geo-politically, Eurasian trade gaining momentum, there being a geographic buffer and Azerbaijan re-integrating , but very long term it may not be what they want due to greater stability in Armenia.

The U.S. will attempt to use this to play Armenia-Azerbaijan-Isis conflict to keep a historic buffer from returning. For the U.S. it will be about maintaining dollar hegemony and minimizing trade relations within a Eurasian Trade Zone. I am of the opinion that the U.S. is supporting Erdogan as the probability of Europe moving further east will diminish, even though there will be longer term (1-2 century) consequences. Russia will try to play this as a way to fracture NATO; but their first choice is to have Europe move eastward economically and after a few generations military cooperation (not necessarily alliances), as well as having Turkey be a trading center (to include being a gold proxy), and a Kurdish region that fulfills a ancient role as buffer between 3 empires and cultures. In general Europe loses both ways with the general exception of increased trade via the Russian long game. In any case the U.S. will gain in the short term. The U.S. losses would most probably come long term if Turkey swings east and they fail to integrate into the larger trading block that is forming. The short term losses in the region will be the body count as well as the mis-allocation of productive capacity due to war. ISIS is one of the shadow mechanisms to disrupt a potential Kurdish state.




For those who may be unaware, what Constitution45 is referring to is the Commonwealth of 9 Independent States (CIS) that was formed after the breakup of the Soviet Union by the Russian Federation (Russia), Belarus, and Ukraine. They are the major border-states to the west and to the south of Russia. Note that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are not among them and these areas will be used to contend against Russia in the later part of the 21st century and into the 22nd century. In the second to last paragraph of post #15 on this thread when I was discussing special critical points I did not mention Estonia (with a relationship between Latvia and Estonia) as it will most probably be a focal point such as Syria is now. Eight of the nine CIS member states participate in the CIS Free Trade Area known as the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA), and five of these states (excluding Ukraine) form the Eurasian Economic Union (referred to as EEU or EAEU consisting of 180+ million people). Before this, the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC or EurAsEC) was the forum for economic union in Asia. As of 2015, Armenia is also a part of the EEU, but the former Soviet state(s), Azerbaijan (and Turkmenistan) have not signed the agreement and Tajikistan is the only hold out form the original EAEC. This will be important in the future.

The EEU will be a conduit for the Eurasia Trade Zone (ETZ) no matter what this group may be called in the future. The ETZ (as a technical organization) does not exists rather I have (and will continue to) use(d) it as a place holder for what is developing between ancient empires (Russian, Persian, Ottoman, Chinese).

Also there are six member states who participate in a mutual defense alliance known as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) which include Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan where aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all. This is a very important element in the geo-political realm today and furthermore it must be noted that Russia now has the right to veto the establishment of new foreign military bases in the member states, but the following are not included from the past; the U.S. transit center in Kyrgyzstan, the German air transit facility in Uzbekistan and French military aircraft based in Tajikistan. As this relates to the Ukraine, The CSTO has a peacekeeping capacity. The CSTO began as the CIS Collective Security Treaty (CST) that included Armenia in 1992 and Azerbaijan was added in 1993. Note Azerbaijan was part of the 1993 CST, but is not (yet) part of the CSTO. This is an important part of Russian Geo-political strategy and will likely be used by the U.S. to divide parts of the Eurasian Trade Zone as well as the Russia and Iranian cooperation in general. I expect Russia to allow Azerbaijan (Caucus Albania) to be re-integrated into the Iranian sphere and Iran will temporarily (50-100 years) minimize (religious) conflicts with Armenia and western Georgia (Caucus Iberia).

In addition there is a customs union (EACU) of which Armenia is also a member. The goal with the EACU in 2010 was to form a European type of economic alliance with four freedoms (goods, capital, services, and people). This is where the import and export duties on products are determined as well as macro-economic policy, energy policy and migration policy is decided here. How dollar hegemony and bi-lateral relations with the ¨STANs¨ play out is geo-politically noteworthy, but the tactical details are bulky and I plan to focus on the higher level.

We can see the complexity building before we begin as well as the following fact that most are unaware as some countries are members of one group and not members of another. The EEU operates through supranational and intergovernmental institutions. These include The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council as the "Supreme Body" of the Union, consisting of the Heads of the Member States. The Eurasian Commission (the executive body functions as a cabinet government with members from each country and the chairman being nominated by the heads of state), the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council (the Prime Ministers of member states) and the Court of the EEU.

In January 2016, Ukraine and the European Union started provisionally applying a fairly comprehensive (free) trade agreement. Russia signed a decree in mid-December 2015 suspending its CIS Free Trade Agreement with respect to Ukraine effective the beginning of January 2016. The Ukrainian Government responded by passing trade restrictions on Russia the following day. Agreements between Ukraine and other EEU states within the free trade area remain in effect. Across the CIS region I expect trade to increase and it will play a larger role in uniting Europe and Asia economically and via energy, trade and heavy industry. Keep your eyes to the trade situation between CIS members (other than Russia) and Europe. If this falters, the general movement of Europe eastward will slow.


One of the main issues with Ukraine long term will be the inflow of weapons that have occurred over the last two years which will be used in the future for various efforts in the area. Militarily, I view this as a type of cache that can be used to expand from (eastern) Ukraine further into the Caucasus (Black Sea to Caspian Sea) particularly from, Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan and Azerbaijan. ISIS could bridge from fighting with the Ukrainian nationalists (this is important from a geo-political public relations perspective as the mass perception could shift from Anti-Islam to Pro-Russian) down through the Caucasus and into the Middle-East. What may be replayed are themes from Arab-Khazhar and Arab-Byzantine wars from well over a millennia ago. I propose that this is part of the western plan. Perhaps I have hinted about this before, but I will add some emphasis and propose that ISIS is principally run out of Turkey with U.S. support. The originally mentioned cache above can also be used to move west into Europe. My ISIS prognosis is for increased turmoil in Europe short term; decreased turmoil in southern Turkey and Syria medium term (with a few bumps still come) due to Russian intervention, increased long term turmoil in the Caucuses. If the medium term turmoil were to increase in Syria and Turkey (which I assign a low to moderate probability); I would expect the long term turmoil in the Caucuses to be severe.

Overall I see (short of NBC) highly probable large long term Russian geo-political gains, highly probable modest long term Iranian geo-political gains, highly probable small short term U.S. gains, medium term mixed bag but more negative and probably long term U.S. losses (should they continue dollar hegemony to its ultimate conclusion), moderate to probable short term Turkish losses, medium term Turkish gains (but the degree of gains could vary widely as it depends on a regime change); probable short and medium term European losses and possible long term European gains (if immigration issues are resolved within a generation). I consider Ukrainian loses short and medium term highly probable and the region remaining inflamed until after dollar hegemony is broken (probable in the medium to long term).

I want to keep this at a high level so that people can start to see the links and continue making connections.

[thoughtgypsy]

(04-17-2016 10:09 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  

ISIS could bridge from fighting with the Ukrainian nationalists (this is important from a geo-political public relations perspective as the mass perception could shift from Anti-Islam to Pro-Russian) down through the Caucasus and into the Middle-East. What may be replayed are themes from Arab-Khazhar [emphasis added] and Arab-Byzantine wars from well over a millennia ago.

I don't want to derail the conversation, but it's interesting you mentioned the Khazhars. While studying modern history, I've noticed a recurring pattern of this ethnic group playing a massively disproportionate influence on historical events. Even in the modern age, there are countless examples where ancestors of this group are given diplomatic immunity and given free reign to operate internationally with impunity.

Historical records of the group are hard to come by, and many of the sources I've read regarding their history strike me as being rife with obfuscation, misdirection, and disinformation. Of the widely accepted history, they are said to be a Turkic people whose modern origin spans the central Caucus region which we are currently discussing, occupying it between the 7th and 9th century AD. Scattered records repute the Khazars to be a particularly brutal and warlike tribe, often raiding and making war with neighbors, though again, information is often hard to come by.

From the 8th century onwards, much of the ruling class and nobility of the Khazars converted to Judaism, which many believe is the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. This would explain the very high mean IQ of the Ashkenazim compared to other Jewish groups (Mizrahi, Sephardim, Ethiopian), as the nobility often falls on the right side of the bell curve in the IQ of a given society.

Conversion to Judaism would have provided a convenient pretext to expand into Europe, starting with Russia, and eventually into other countries. The Jewish diaspora set up separate communities throughout the world, and these networks could be infiltrated and used to set up institutions of disproportionate influence, such as news print and money lending. Through these mediums, it would be easier to instigate economic volatility, along with internal and external conflicts within the communities they resided. This may have been responsible for the expulsion of Jews from many societies throughout history.

More recently it has been used as a pretext over claims to Israel, a land which they share no historical ties to. Sephardic Jews have a historic tie to the land, but are often treated as second class citizens by the Ashkenazim. There was a recent controversy where Dr. Elhaik, an Israeli molecular geneticist and IDF veteran, revealed that Ashkenazim genetics suggest a central caucasian origin, not a middle eastern one. This explanation would undermine much of the political justification for the formation of the modern Jewish state. Elhaik's conclusions are loudly denounced among the academic orthodoxy regarding Jewish genetics. Curiously, those who've published critical studies refuse to turn over their genetic data unless Elhaik would have agreed to produce a study of a "non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people."

Judaism can also be used as political cover, allowing Ashkenazi to pursue and crush any hint of criticism related to their activities under the guise of anti-semitism. This is interesting, as the Ashkenazim have Turkic origins, and have no relation to Semetic people, or speak a Semetic language. Often their activities in the Middle East are antagonistic to people of Semetic origin, or quite literally, "anti-Semetic" in nature. Interestingly, many athiest and secular Ashkenazim will cry anti-semitism despite having no affiliation with religious Judaism whatsoever.

The Khazars were said to have a particular interest in the Gog and Magog story in revelations. Gog and Magog is often associated in multiple religions as ushering in the onset of the apocalypse, and some believe that Khazars wishes to instigate conflict for this reason, though I'm not sure how believable those accounts are.

[FebGun]

Khazhars were lost without trace 11 centuries ago. Where did he take Khazhars DNA from for comparison?

10-15 years ago another Israeli scientist discovered that Jews came form Greeks.

I wonder who is funding all these discoveries.

[thoughtgypsy]

(04-18-2016 01:59 PM)FebGun Wrote:  

Khazhars were lost without trace 11 centuries ago. Where did he take Khazhars DNA from for comparison?

10-15 years ago another Israeli scientist discovered that Jews came form Greeks.

I wonder who is funding all these discoveries.

It was a comparison of DNA from Ashkenazi Jews against DNA from Sephardic Jews and other populations, including those from the Caucuses. A high correlation between DNA from Ashkenazi Jews and those populations historically residing in the Caucuses suggest an origin in the Caucasian region, not one from Palestine.

[Going strong]

NASA test pilot, quoting you:
"One of the main issues with Ukraine long term will be the inflow of weapons that have occurred over the last two years which will be used in the future for various efforts in the area".

So, would you say that this influx of weaponry and (slow, but real) re-building of the Ukrainian army, can only mean one thing: war will be re-ignited in Eastern Ukraine within 2 or 3 years? Do you see another outcome...? Could Eastern Ukraine, under these circumstances, stay a frozen-conflict zone for many years to come, or do you predict high-intensity armed confrontation? Do you think Russia will forever maintain its military backing for the Eastern Ukraine people, or seek a political solution (building an autonomous republic within Ukraine, and protected -more or less- by the Ukrainian constitution)?

[NASA Test Pilot]

The influx of weapons into the Ukraine comes from a number of sources (there are both geo-political as well as military-industrial issues as Ukraine is manufacturing very little now, particularly aircraft), of which Russia is one. The military-industrial tact and forcing Ukraine to use up its large surplus of Soviet era-stores is a strategic gain for the U.S. and NATO as they attempt to bait Russia back into the economic-military spiral that played a major role in the demise of the Soviet Union. Also, unknown to most, many of the metals needed for warfare have been depleted (stolen) since 1991. This was part of the longer term industrial warfare that preceded the Ukrainian incursion in 2014. Russia will, in one way or another, maintain a strong (military) interest in the Ukraine. There is a red line that if crossed by the west or western backers will result in the highest intensity of conflicts. On a longer time line, the western backers will attempt to replace those with a Russian nationalistic (like Putin) or Tsarist fervor. I predict that these backers will fail (at least in the 21st century). I think that Russia would like to go the more autonomous route with Ukraine due to the deep Russian influences there culturally, but the autonomous route will be undermined by other power brokers (and Russia knows this) and hence will keep the tip of the sword at the ready.

My concern with this prediction is the level of insanity that those power brokers will attempt, particularly in light of some (non-Russian) events in 2015. You need satellite imagery to examine a distinctive double flash where the dip between the two flashes is caused by the air turning into plasma that is not transparent to visible light (there are also radiological (although they would the detection would be in Russia as the winds blow to the east) and seismic indications). It is noteworthy that Vladimir Putin, while Secretary of Russia's Security Council, developed a (then) new military doctrine he called ¨de-escalation,¨ a strategy envisioning the threat of a limited ¨tactical¨ strike that would force an opponent to accept a return to the status quo. Strategically, it is important to note that a first strike would take out 98+% of the enemy strategic weapons, and then a functional missile shield could deal with the remaining 1-2%. This strategy of US primacy is why Russia and China react against the US missile defense shield program as they understand that once this system is in place, the US might be willing to risk a strategic attack against them, upsetting the strategic balance. I will let this topic rest here.

Moving away from a more insane scenario, a re-ignition of an Eastern Ukrainian war is more probable in the 4-5 (could be as many as 10 years even though the man power is available, the equipment is not) year time frame (a temporary freeze, although the 2-3 years is possible (on a small scale) if my following premise fails to attain traction) as the covert projection (including ISIS) of force will be toward Europe (particularly Germany, France, Belgium and depending on banking issues, Spain and Italy). If this push into Europe is successful (it is too early for me to give a probability (I will be watching Germany for my main cues), but some of my (former) peers believe there is a high probability for success) then I would look for a re-ignition in Ukraine and after this an increase in activity in Georgia and Chechnya followed by a flow from Ukraine toward Georgia and Chechnya. From the manpower perspective, because of the lack of equipment and de-moralization of the army, there is a higher probability for the creation of more extreme volunteer battalions that will be used (in the Ukraine, to push into Europe as well as eventually to be used in the Trans-Caucus region). If the push into Europe is unsuccessful, I would look for the re-ignition in Ukraine (more by the extremist battalions at first), followed by unfolding events in Georgia, Chechnya and the Trans-Caucus to begin sooner rather than later.

To be more direct in answering Going Strong´s question, I foresee increased armed conflict in the Ukraine. I think that it will be smaller scale with extremist battalions at first. It then becomes a question of when and how intense and this depends on the insanity of certain power brokers (as well as the restraint of some heads of state) and the incursions into Europe (to include the migration prong under which a large majority of the incursions will be hidden beneath). Taking my best guess now (and disagreeing with my former peers in regards to how this plays out in Europe), I would say that Germany (its citizens and the majority of its Industrialist-Bankers) will resist, push back and a (successful) hammer and anvil type of maneuvering will occur with Russia and Germany. The longer term strife within Ukraine could be prolonged as my peers suggest if the number of extremist battalions becomes significant (even if they are pushed back from Europe as they will be pushed back into the Ukraine after which they will look to Ukraine herself and then toward the Trans-Caucus region).

The longer term Europe would be the real mess (even with minimal extremist battalion influences) and I would venture to say there would be a re-nationalization of the European Union countries that would eventually be admitted in to a Eurasian Trade Zone one by one on a longer timeline. The key to this re-nationalization will be the influence of England. This is why the Chinese walk a tight-rope between having Frankfurt and London as the major Yuan swap center for Europe (I still predict that it will be Frankfurt, but 70-30), as both are necessary for long term European integration with Asia. How long this takes will depends on questions of energy supplies from either North America or Asia (Middle-East) as mentioned in a previous post as well as the power that England maintains financially.

If Turkey is stabilized and Eurasian trading is increased, the probability of destabilization in the Caucuses will decrease significantly, but it will still be there, particularly long (centuries) term. This (relative) stability could positively affect the energy production and the transit of energy westward. If this stability were to occur within 5 years, there is a higher probability of Europe transitioning into a Eurasian Trade zone more quickly. If it takes 10-20 years, the probability of this transition decreases and/or the timeline increases significantly.

[hydrogonian]

(04-20-2016 07:54 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  

You need satellite imagery to examine a distinctive double flash where the dip between the two flashes is caused by the air turning into plasma that is not transparent to visible light (there are also radiological (although they would the detection would be in Russia as the winds blow to the east) and seismic indications).

To clarify, what is the double flash indicative of?

Quote:

I would say that Germany (its citizens and the majority of its Industrialist-Bankers) will resist, push back and a (successful) hammer and anvil type of maneuvering will occur with Russia and Germany.

To clarify, who will they be resisting?

Does this hypothetical citizen and industrialist-banker resistance assume an ousting of the current political class in Germany?

Quote:

The longer term Europe would be the real mess (even with minimal extremist battalion influences) and I would venture to say there would be a re-nationalization of the European Union countries that would eventually be admitted in to a Eurasian Trade Zone one by one on a longer timeline.

What would you surmise to be the long term social and / or economic effects of the resultant Russian / Chinese influence over Europe?

Quote:

The key to this re-nationalization will be the influence of England.

I suppose that this is as good of a place in the conversation, as any, to introduce this thought:

Who is "England"? Who is "Russia"? Who is "America"? The answer certainly doesn't seem to be rooted in any type of popular ethnic identity nor welfare. For China, the answer is clearer. However, I have a difficult time discerning who these Western interests are who are at war.

It defies logic that these nations are warring for the interests of the increasingly random and ever changing amalgamation of people living within any specific geopolitical boundary. It also seems unlikely that the Western Billionaire pool, to include Russia, is so politically atomized so as to warrant the threat of large scale conventional war let alone nuclear war. To discover why we are in conflict, I propose that it is necessary to clarify who is in conflict.

The most logical answer, to me, would be that it's a war between the European race(s) (with Britain at the center) and the Asian race(s) (with Han Chinese at the center) with an unimaginably slow up-scaling of hostility prefaced by decades (if not centuries) of maneuvering. Though, that is also contradicted by some facets of history (ie: WWII), trade (ie: the imbalance with China), and even modern military reality (ie: China attaining seemingly advanced weapons tech from the West). It would also have us assume that Russia or its rulers (whoever "Russia" or its rulers are) sees themselves as ethnically Oriental instead of European.

While it would be disappointing to think that these conflicts are the merely the result of billionaire competition, I suppose that would be a viable answer.

The third, fourth, and fifth possibilities might be the British Crown and Banking cartel as a discernible interest group that is atomized from the British populace, the Zionists (who are a discernible interest group but also who may or may not exactly be discernible from the British elite), and the maneuvering, by any group, not just for currency and resource control but also for land control and the resulting expansion in local governing power and territory-based geopolitical influence. Even Lebensraum for the groups who still identify with their populace. Though, again, I find the risk difficult to believe if it isn't positioning for a likely inevitable war between China and the West.

If it is to be unconventional warfare, then why the maneuvering? I can't imagine the realistic possibility of conventional warfare with China.

It might be possible to believe that this is merely a currency war but I find that difficult to believe simply for the fact that what they are ostensibly trying to prevent, in terms of the value of the USD, seems to be inevitable.

In sum, who is fighting and what is the desired end-game?

[Constitution45]

A lot of this seems to go back to Samuel Huntington's theory on the 'Clash of the Civilisations'. Orthodox Christian countries, being led by Russia were always seen as a civilisation in itself. China is a more obvious one. But even today if you were to speak to intellectuals coming from Eurasia, they would always differentate between Russia, the rest of Europe and the Anglo Saxon speaking countries.

[hydrogonian]

(04-21-2016 03:28 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

A lot of this seems to go back to Samuel Huntington's theory on the 'Clash of the Civilisations'. Orthodox Christian countries, being led by Russia were always seen as a civilisation in itself. China is a more obvious one. But even today if you were to speak to intellectuals coming from Eurasia, they would always differentate between Russia, the rest of Europe and the Anglo Saxon speaking countries.

That's a good thought, and NST might correct me, but I don't believe that is nearly the entire picture. If that were the case, we'd see more sanctioned populism in the West as well as Russia (as we do in the East) instead of its almost wholesale suppression. We'd see less economic policy that supports the rise of China. We'd see less military leaks to China. We'd see less coddling of Islam and Africa in the West. We'd see less evidence of Trotskyism in the social and political spheres in the West. We'd see less internal enemies (many institutional), working toward social and economic deconstruction, as a whole throughout the West and even in the Western banking center of London. We'd see less political double standards across the nations of the West.

I'm aware of the intellectuals that you are likely speaking about (Dugin, Laos, etc), and know their philosophies to relatively good depth as well as their backgrounds. I don't trust their asserted goals for various reasons that are out of the scope of this thread. It's my opinion that they aren't exactly who they are currently purporting to be. This does not imply that they aren't "pro-Russian" or that they are wrong in asserting Russia's distance from Europe. In fact, the latter assertion would make sense in the larger scheme of what I think is going on; but it also does not clarify a full picture. The key is, however, as I before proposed, to isolate who the 'Russians' are as well as who everyone else is.

[thoughtgypsy]

The events which are now taking place, which NASA Test Pilot has continually alluded to, have been planned for some time. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter, and organizer of the Trilateral Commission wrote in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997):

Quote:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia – and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival – would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p.30)

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p.40)

“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

[Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict – describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” (p.124)

What Brzezinski is describing (in 1997, nearly a decade ago) is the goal of achieving a world governed by a single global power. Independent sovereign actors such as Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China, are described as "barbaric" or "anarchaic" because they are not currently subject to direct centralized control. It's also appropriate to note that the Trilateral Comission which Brzezinski helped organize is an international organization which encourages globalism and is not subject to any national laws.

[hydrogonian]

(04-21-2016 11:40 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

The events which are now taking place, which NASA Test Pilot has continually alluded to, have been planned for some time. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter, and organizer of the Trilateral Commission wrote in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997):

I have carefully read through all of NTP's posts. The prevailing question for me, after doing so, is the identity of the powers at war.

For instance, there is no collective interest known as "America" in my observation that extends through the ranks of the populace. "America" is merely a geographically located amalgamation of differing interests.

"America" is an abstraction and a weak one at that. The "American people" (increasingly a contradiction in terms) largely cannot identify their interests in the actions of "America" both at home and abroad.

I can observe China's identity and interests at home and abroad. I can observe Israel's identity and interests at home and abroad. And that's about where it ends.

Why are China and Israel driven toward a more politically effective national cohesiveness, while other nations are split apart? Other nations, other than the aforementioned two, which assert national identity are categorized as evil in propaganda.

I would offer that unless such a national identity is aggressively asserted, as we see with Israel and China, that it does not exist and there are truer entities to be identified under the guise of the national moniker.

I propose that the actual "nation", or the people, in such a politically disconnected country is a population present mostly for economic purposes but to be ignored, used, sacrificed, etc. for political purposes.

In short, they (ie: the American People) are not a politically active nation, on the global level, and should not be viewed as such in the context of an attempt to define geopolitics on the world stage.

At best, they are a local nation, or collection of nations, whose global political interests are ignored by those who claim to represent them.

Quote:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia – and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival – would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p.30)

America's political identity is required.

Quote:

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p.40)

Here we have an admission that geopolitics is a competition between nebulous "elites".

I have three observations:

1. That Brzezinski is implying, whether purposefully or not, a political disconnection between the goals of (inter)national elites in Europe and the popular interests of European nation(s) as a whole.

2. That Brzezinski fails to note a specific group identity for these "elites", even though it defies logic to think that he could not.

3. That this is a geopolitical strategy book published by a large publisher and, thus, that his offered perspective may not be the entire picture. It overuses an appeal to American national identity, that is largely nonexistent, while identifying (implied nationalist) European "elites". I would assume that both perspectives, especially in the context of one another, are askew from reality.

Quote:

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

Identity. Convince me that American elites care about the well-being of Somali refugees in terms of how much they are represented by a "global power".

Quote:

[Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict – describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” (p.124)

I'd be impressed if anyone, even China, could wrest them away from Russian influence and protection given the terrain.

Quote:

What Brzezinski is describing (in 1997, nearly a decade ago) is the goal of achieving a world governed by a single global power. Independent sovereign actors such as Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China, are described as "barbaric" or "anarchaic" because they are not currently subject to direct centralized control. It's also appropriate to note that the Trilateral Comission which Brzezinski helped organize is an international organization which encourages globalism and is not subject to any national laws.

So, what is Brzezinski's group's identity? "American"? I don't think so for the reasons described and because that identity forgoes internationalism by definition. Banker? industrialist? homosexual? Jew? Catholic? (along with 100 million Filipinos, right ) Royalty? White?

Someone's interest is being served in this world government utopic vision. If it is a competition of interests for such control, then those interests need to be specifically identified.

I have a suspicion that the competing interests are not all that far apart, and may instead only be engaging in a certain amount of theater to eliminate resistance to a world government on the popular level, in some countries, rather than between most major players. That's not to say that nations like Iran aren't legitimate resistance. I'd also suspect some nation(s) to survive both as strong and unified.

This conversation has likely reached its limit in how much space it should take up in this thread. I invite NST, or anyone else, to pm me if he or they would rather discuss my questions there rather than to take up any more room; unless he or anyone else wants to continue here.

[Going strong]

1. Concerning Ukraine: One scenario I don't see taken into account here, is a take-over of Ukraine, from the inside, either by a coup or by more-or-less normal electoral process, by the "Ukrainian nationalists". Right-sector, Svoboda and other "nationalists". Then, with whom would they ally? Could they forget their (abnormal, dated) hatred of Russia, and build a vast Slavic alliance (to include Belarussia and Serbia, later on down the road, or even Central European States)? I myself foresee at some point in history a vast alliance of "Slavs" and like-minded nations, as Western Europe slowly falls to African migrations (in 15 years, 20 years?)...

2. Another thing that may have formidable geopolitical implications: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/60...42240.html

"More than 600 people from several African countries are stranded after crossing the Atlantic by boat to Brazil and then passing through Colombia and Panama before getting stuck in Costa Rica en route to the United States.

With more arriving every day - so far from seven countries on the continent - to the small border town of Paso Canoas, both the Red Cross and the government have warned it could turn into a crisis.

The whole journey took the people four months.

"It's been bad, a lot of police in Colombia, Panama asking for money," Youleyni, a pregnant woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who travelled with her husband, told Al Jazeera. "

Remember that hundreds of millions of young, money-less Africans are fully determined to risk their lives in order to get to a developed nation (instead of building their own civilizations and economies ) and receive free housing and food and everything... As boats get better and they themselves get bolder, and Europe gets fuller, Africans will emigrate by millions to the USA at some point. Ah and also, if Crooked H is elected, she will "import" millions of Africans and give them voting rights, to stay in power!

The new migrants route will NOT be Turkey-Greece-Hungary-GermanPussy, it'll be Africa-Brazil-Panama-USA! Just wait ten years (5?)...

[NASA Test Pilot]

To sum up more than a half a century of life, over 2 ½ decades of experience as a warrior and over a decade contemplating many of these issues in the space of a post or a thread is a Herculean task of which I am unable to do justice. I am trying to paint a picture and the strokes will be broad describing the world as it is now, while at the same time attempting to put it into a context that spans the entire planet for a length (12 millennia) of history. We are currently focusing on 6 of threads/elements now as it relates to the beginning of WWIII. Also this is in the framework of my general goals which discussed in post #48 as well as how I hope that it encourages people to think (per post #48 and #46).

For those desiring to study some of the basic principles of warfare begin with Sun Tzu (consider more than one translation in your studies), Machiavelli (his general rules of warfare), Henri, Duke of Rohan (Guides for War), Marquis de Silva (Principles for War), Henry Lloyd (Rules for War and Axioms for War), Antoine-Henri Jomini (Maxims for War (two parts) and Didactic Resume) and then Carl von Clausewitz (Vom Kriege, On War). In the 20th century the U.S. used 9 (with debate to add a 10th) principles of warfare (changed to 9+3 in 2011 for joint operations (+3)), the British used 10 and the Soviet-Russians used 11 (now the CIS uses a variation of the Soviet-Russian 11, the Chinese (used the Soviet-Russian 11 until the 1980´s) and then transitioned to use 3 (and are considering a 4th now).




The desired end game is power and the dominion over the resources (including human) of and including the planet Earth. We use nations as they are the geographic units that we in the west have been conceptualizing since the middle of the 17th century and we can more easily reference. However, drawing and redrawing lines on a map is not adequate when we look at the cultures, genetics and histories of humans as they have progressed though time. Conceptually, recall in the third to last paragraph of post #15 and the second to last paragraph of post #15 (which in later posts I called cultural influences). This is a 3 dimensional globe with lines intersecting between points (through the Earth).

In the above mentioned two paragraphs (of post #15) I attempted to illustrate a model. This is the model that I am slowly trying to build/fill out. This however is only one of the Arrays (geographic) of the model and there are many. For a moment, imagine a model based on the above that is run by super-computers in the present moment that can model every human being (a second Array, and then move this into groups (sub-Arrays) whether they be families, neighborhoods, counties, states, nations, organizations, clubs, societies; hidden and not so hidden), as well as other at the genetic and behavioral levels throughout increasing vast periods of time and then you have an idea of the predictive power that is sought in the effort to dominate. Then you have Array (and sub-Arrays) that concern the interactions of the previous Array(s) and they may be considered like relationships at one level. Furthermore, other Arrays are then added such as materials, resources or various natural physical components of the world that we experience with our senses. Then picture another Array with those materials and resources that are constructed by man as they do not occur naturally. I am talking detailed to the point of desiring to label every blade of grass and every grain of sand. Then you may have conceptual Arrays that deal with interactions between Arrays such as Economics. Let us pause there in terms of the Arrays. Next we would apply this Tool (and all of its Arrays to the Art of the Kings, the Art of the Generals and the Art of the Priests that I alluded to in post #33. I do not plan to do this publically; I present it as food for thought and future exploration should readers choose to examine such things on their own.

I want to give a glimpse of this and I will only be able to give a reflection of what I have experienced in relation to this and I will do so imperfectly as I have limitations (both genetically and behaviorally). If there are general suggestions for reframing, I am open, I am using the template in my head based on what I have experienced and used operationally. This makes it more natural for me.

There are interests behind the nations and there are interests behind them and so on. There is the world we see and the world we do not see. Deception is central to the practice of warfare. Attempting to weave threads that connect and interconnect is part of the task, but the greater task is to encourage critical thinking such that individuals can begin making connections and then relate those connections to their lives. For example, what is happening (or will happen) in the Ukraine can influence people should they desire to visit the country, exploit the female imperative and game women or perhaps stay there for longer or shorter periods of time. One of my deeper goals in addition to what I mentioned in post #48, is what I stated at the end of post # 63, ¨So I would point to our instincts and suggest that we follow them as they will serve us well in sniffing out the illusions and these instincts will guide us as we set ourselves up for a series of possibilities. The more we do this, the greater the likelihood of success and the faster we will be.¨

I have made reference to this as a three dimensional chess game and after a life time of study and being involved in warfare (on numerous levels) I am limited by my own experiences as well as concern for my well-being. War is always bodies for land as well as what is on, under, over the land that is important. Normally we view war as mechanistic whether it is with planes, tanks, swords, chariots, spears, bows and the like. War has so many dimensions to include economic, cultural, electronic, psychological, etc. In general we may focus on objectives (which can be physical, political, moral, economic, psychological) logistics, strategy and tactics. When wars are fought on large scales, we often reference a tier between strategy and tactics referred to as grand tactics. Also strategy and tactics not only are intended to achieve the objectives, but may be affected by the objectives in other ways. On the modern battlefield, I learned that amateurs debate strategy and tactics, professionals debate logistics (strategy and tactics are very important important). Logistics refers to everything which is involved in creating military forces, moving them to where they are needed, and keeping them supplied with everything they require in order to operate militarily against the enemy. You cannot fight with what you do not have, and you cannot fight with what you do have if it is in the wrong place. Logistics is the operational art of making sure there is enough of what you need, and that it is where you need it to be so that it can be used tactically, to accomplish the strategy which will achieve the objectives for the war. Then we have asymmetric warfare which attempts to offset superior logistics and force. Napoleon often defeated his enemies tactically in the 19th century, in the 20th century Germany was defeated strategically, Japan was defeated logistically. In late 1960´s the U.S. was defeated politically (even though Ho´s Tet offensive was a tactical loss, strategically it set the NVA up to simply delay and force political resolution).




I will discuss these things on many different levels (geo-politically), not simply mechanistically (as a general) and sometimes at the same time.

From time to time I may take a region or some of its countries and go into more detail, but as I have mentioned before it is a call for others to study and think and contribute as best they can. This thread began out of expanding why the dollar is so high discussing it in a larger context so that we may understand it better. This larger scale is both historic as well as geo-political and thus here we are. We will not be able to tie everything together in a unified theory. Making sense of the world is multi-faceted and part of what we do as men.

There are certain things that I do not wish to discuss in detail and what a double flash is indicative of is one of them (think NBC warfare). My goal is not to frustrate, but often time people must read between the lines. I made a post about greymen (post #33) and for me to elaborate further is not wise. Getting to the point of who is in conflict is very astute (Hydrogonian) and I recommend rigorous application on the part of the readers. For me to give my experiences and perceptions with regard to the three dimensional chessboard would only happen (as a possibility) if you are with me on my sailboat while at sea, I will not do it in a forward manner here. Think of black pieces, white pieces on one level with grey pieces moving between them on the horizontal plane. This then happens with other grey pieces moving in a vertical plane to another horizontal chessboard and again you have black pieces, white pieces and still other grey pieces (and they are not called grey men on this level) and this transitions vertically yet again.

I do think that the current political class in Germany will be ousted over time. The larger issue will be the oaths and affirmations that the (new) German leader(s) take in relation the U.S. with the next set of public leaders. How this will play out is uncertain and it is one of those behind the scenes grey issues (consider re-reading post #46 and post #63).

As for the long term economic issues, it depends on how it plays out. If it played out as I allude to in the previous post (which is unlikely as things are constantly changing and in a year from now based on actual (known and perhaps un-reported) events it could be different), then there will be greater peace (which can be, but is not always synonymous with greater freedom) relatively speaking in Asia and Europe. As a consequence of this, I posit that external conflict will intensify (particularly over resources) in other areas (especially Africa in the late 21st and early 22nd centuries, this will be an escalation of the low intensity conflicts that have been occurring over the last generation between major powers), but I will not get into this for some-time. The long term social issues will have part of my attention and I will watch this with great interest. In general, I think (and have personally planned for) various individual freedoms will (to) actual(ly) decline as well as a greater social and moral decay.

The reformation of Ukraine that Going strong discusses, may in fact, result if the extreme battalions are formed and then push into Europe, get stopped and return (as I suggest, but my peers disagree). This may partly be by design. I propose that it (Ukrainian reformation) will fail the first go around, but it will gain traction for the 22nd century. I give this a moderate to high probability on a late 21st century time line and I believe that this is part of the Russian/Czarist long game and counter strategy.

With regard to the immigration (African and otherwise) on the boats, I suggest people look into who is paying for the boats and what organizations are funneling people to the boats.

Hydrogonian perceptively read me correctly with regard to England and the potential re-nationalization of Europe. It will take place on a few levels, from the nation-state to the level of the Monarchy (as many of the lines are tied together) within all of Europe, etc. China may seem clearer, but I put forth that there are lines that exist there that are go back centuries and multiple millennia. When I discuss the 6th thread/element (as I began to discuss in post #21) we may generally discuss the previous concepts as cultural under currents, as these elements may be involved, but per post #28, I do not want to go down rat holes, although sometimes the readers may find it worthy of their attention to do so. An example would be a basic 12 century history of the current English Monarchy moving back one century when the public family name was changed for political reasons, then following that lineage back (particularly along the Germanic lines) to where this Germanic heritage flourished with the building of that line´s castle(s) with the slave labor of Slavic tribes (which still exist genetically and tribally in Germany). You can see another Russian-German-English undercurrent, although it may be more ¨cultural¨ and hidden (as being distinguished from disguised).




It is most definitely beyond nations and at more than one level. I allude to some of these, like in post #4 when I mentioned ¨Interestingly, the current leader of U.S. State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources is the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.¨ In post #5, ¨To understand part of the current and forth coming conflict(s) with China it is important to understand some of the relational roots from the 1930´s. As the Japanese were invading mainland China in the 1930´s, various organizations, to include extra-ordinarily wealthy families (with hundreds of years of history) desired to move their wealth from the country.¨ ¨This notion has a parallel with Czarist wealth transfer to the west as the Russian Revolution was beginning in the early part of the 20th century.¨ In post #8, ¨Something is amiss. As I mentioned on my previous bond post on why is the value of the dollar so high thread, the narrative does not match the facts. The ability to do a proper analysis is not possible because we are being lied to. Therefore, one must look to other elements that are not presented to the masses, but footprints of their existence can be seen.¨ The list goes on. When you study the people involved, it is important to study their backgrounds to include their cultural and genetic lineages as a more complete picture will come to the fore.

It is extra-ordinarily difficult to do a proper analysis because we are being lied to (also some things are disguised, some are simply hidden, other times our attention is mis-directed) and we do not have all (most, a majority) of the facts (elements), hence we need to examine some of the footprints that indicate that ¨something¨ is leaving the footprint. I will often do this in-directly. Thinking in a linear western mind-set will be limiting, I suggest attempting thinking relationally as well (see post #32). It often goes back very far in recorded history and that is why sometimes I touch on some deep history as I am setting a base for potential excursions in the future. It will be beyond the scope of this thread, but I often stop most of my historic base before the 10th-11th millennia B.C.

In general over the next (two) centuries look for nations to break down and the movement toward supra-national structures (I am not saying this is a good thing for humanity, because I do not believe it is). Things will move to zones or spheres of influences such as East – West or Americas, European-Africa, Asian-Pacific Rim, or Americas, Eurasian, African, etc. Then look for attention to be placed on other things where the population can be maneuvered into Us vs. Them. This is a simple, but effective geographic frame, it can (and will) easily be implemented based on other things as well to include religion, genetics, language, and perceptual frameworks (which includes various ideologies).

This is my last post for a while guys as I am out to sea and will be going dark shortly. It is my hope that you continue here until I return.

[Going strong]

(04-21-2016 05:40 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  

This is my last post for a while guys as I am out to sea and will be going dark shortly. It is my hope that you continue here until I return.

If you bring a book or 2 to read on your boat, which you'll certainly do, consider bringing a pulsating and interesting thriller from (professional sea diver and fellow skipper) John McKinna: http://www.johnmannock.com/



In any case, your thought-provoking analysis on many threads will be missed! Come back soon and safe to the forum!

[polar]

I think that it is important to note that both US and USSR pushed globalism, their respective versions of globalism, during the Cold War. Previously, other nations did the same previously as well - most famously, UK with its colonies worldwide. The reason being...even a global government needs a seat of power from which to issue directives. If you're a winner with resources to spare, you want more people to rally under your flag. In financial terms, it's a momentum play.

Alternatively, if you don't like the game the way it is played, you
1) take measures to minimize your loss exposure (i.e. counter harmful propaganda, refuse to participate in various international agreements)
2) work to change the game in your favor, ideally starting with your immediate spheres of influence - generally countries nearest your borders (as you have the most in common culturally), and those with whom you have the biggest trade relations.
3) you double down in those regional areas in order to amass enough power to project further out.

Similarly, regional unification and consolidation, like M&A in embattled industries, consolidates the power of the bloc versus external actors...but, this is contingent on internal ties and similarities being stronger than external commitments made by each party to the union. In this case, and similar to Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", countries with multiple ethnic minorities become the pawns in a tug of war between their larger neighbors.

The decision to consolidate plays out in a bunch of areas. Most significantly - in economics, but also in all sorts of areas, such as religion (see ecumenism in Christianity, or the...explosive...temper of Sunnis and Shiites).

Something not yet discussed extensively on this thread are the various transnational trade agreements. I'm working on a background post on trade agreements that you seasoned gentlemen could build off and add color.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Now that you mention globalism as a form of control, I was reading something about the history of Slavic people and this caught my eye:

Quote:

Patrick Geary points out that the Slavic expansion was a decentralized, yet often forceful process resulting in the assimilation of great numbers of people. The assimilating power was carried by small groups of "soldier-farmers" who carried common traditions and language. "Without kings or large –scales chieftains to bribe or defeat, the Byzantine Empire had little hope of either destroying them or coopting them into the imperial system."

[NASA Test Pilot]

In post #44, I discuss 4 elements for the future. My goal was not go off the deep end, rather to bridge the present and possibilities for the future. Along those lines, a CalTech friend made me aware of a gold nanowire that was coated in a manganese dioxide shell and encasing the assembly in an electrolyte made of a Plexiglas-like gel that can provide a nanowire-based battery material that can be recharged hundreds of thousands of times. The technical implications for element one (energy) of the geo-political thread could be enormous over the next two generations. The article below goes into more detail.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...211136.htm

This probably deserves its own thread.

--------

Along the lines of post #32 and people have asked me about reading list recommendations and a few current authors that have influenced me or whom I find relevant. Political economy authors would include Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrick Hayek, Joseph Shumpeter (more economic), Frederick Bastiat, Jean Baptiste Say, David Ricardo.

Present day I would consider David Stockman and his Contra Corner with articles like:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/on...t-landing/

to be noteworthy, in the late 1990´s I was reading people like Adam Hamilton: http://www.zealllc.com/2001/monster.htm


In general I have recommended that the best course of study is to delve into those topics which personally motivate you. With motivation at your base, you will read and study far more than if I (or someone else) gives you a list, you will naturally branch out. The issue might then become branching out so far that you become dispersed and do not build a base.

If you can find an old copy of Carroll Quigley´s Tragedy and Hope http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf consider reading it.

Consider the study Psychopathy and Ponerology as this will broaden your perspective. You will be fortunate to find books available particularly those more (Soviet psychological) research oriented pre-1975 (especially pre-1959) or English books pre-1960 such as The Mask of Sanity from 1941 as well as a second American addition in 1950 that was greatly expanded. You can find the 1941 copy here (it is almost 500 pages):

http://www.cix.co.uk/~klockstone/sanity_1.pdf

I posit that books/research on psychopathy after 1960 have been co-opted, so when reading them (particularly the farther you move from this time), keep your eyes sharp as there is both mis-information as well as dis-information in the mix (this will become clearer should you examine English works pre-1960 or Soviet works pre-1975). Cleckley warned the defense department at the onset of WWII in regard to recruiting men with psychopathy (based on his studies from WWI veterans) and understood the implications of psychopathy in law-enforcement.

Consider starting your research on Ponerology with Political Ponerology here: http://www.serendipity.li/bush/ponerology_preview.pdf

Then when you read things like the Grand Chess Board, http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf or
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Your perspective will be much broader. Another greyman whom many have never heard is Zalmay Khalilzad. Geo-political activities during the late 1970´s and early 1980´s in Afghanistan were then applied in Bosnia the 1990´s, and then again in first part of the 20th century in Iraq and have evolved to today in the current gambit (westward from Iraq and into Turkey) that people view as an immigration issue (with many countries). Consider this as a partial bridge.

http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm