Visualizing The 4,000 Year History Of Global Power

Imagine creating a timeline of your country’s whole history stretching back to its inception.

It would be no small task, as VisualCapitalist"s Nick Routley explains, simply weighing the relative importance of so many great people, technological achievements, and pivotal events would be a tiny miracle in itself.

While that seems like a challenge, imagine going a few steps further. Instead of a timeline for just one country, what about creating a graphical timeline showing the history of the entire world over a 4,000 year time period, all while having no access to computers or the internet?

AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING TIMELINE?

Today’s infographic, created all the way back in 1931 by a man named John B. Sparks, maps the ebb and flow of global power going all the way back to 2,000 B.C. on one coherent timeline...

View a high resolution version of this graphic

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

Histomap, published by Rand McNally in 1931, is an ambitious attempt at fitting a mountain of historical information onto a five-foot-long poster. Although the distribution of power is not quantitively defined on the x-axis, it does provide a rare example of looking at historic civilizations in relative terms. While the Roman Empire takes up a lot of real estate during its Golden Age, for example, we still get a decent look at what was happening in other parts of the world during that period.

The visualization is also effective at showing the ascent and decline of various states, nations, and empires.

TIMELINE CAVEATS

Since this chart was created at the beginning of the Great Depression, one does have to consider to what extent Sparks saw history as a zero-sum exercise; a collection of nations battling one another for control over scarce territory and resources.

Crowning a world leader at certain points in history is relatively easy, but divvying up influence or power to everyone across 4,000 years requires some creativity, and likely some guesswork, as well. Some would argue that the lack of hard data makes it impossible to draw these types of conclusions (though there have been other more quantitative approaches.)

Another obvious criticism is that the measures of influence are skewed in favor of Western powers. China’s “seam”, for example, is suspiciously thin throughout the length of the timeline.

Lastly, the histomap refers to various cultural and racial groups using terms that may seem rather dated to today’s viewers.

THE LEGACY OF HISTOMAP

John Spark’s creation is an admirable attempt at making history more approachable and entertaining. Today, we have seemingly limitless access to information, but in the 1930s an all encompassing timeline of history would have been incredibly useful and groundbreaking.

Critiques aside, work like this paved the way for the production of modern data visualizations and charts that help people better understand the world around them today.

Can Germany Be Made Great Again?

Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man.com,

When Germany Was Great!

Ever since the start of the deliberately conceived “migrant crisis,” orchestrated by NWO elites, the news out of Germany has been, to say the least, horrific. Right before the eyes of the world, a country is being demographically destroyed through a coercive plan of mass migration.  The intended consequences of this – financial strain, widespread crime and property destruction, the breakdown of German culture – will continue to worsen if things are not turned around.

 

The Holy Roman Empire in 1789 AD. At the time, Germany was a patchwork of countless independent principalities, duchies, city states, bishoprics and other statelets. This was a glorious time, as citizens could very easily vote with their feet if they were unhappy with their rulers. Keep in mind, there were no such things as “passports” or “border controls” at the time. No-one even thought about such things – it would have been considered an inane notion. And although almost every statelet minted its own coins (displaying its own coat of arms and a portrait of its ruler), money was actually standardized across the entire region since the Middle Ages. Most of Germany used silver coins, which were minted according to standardized weights and sizes (gold coins were also used, but silver was more prevalent in day-to-day commerce). Thus all coins were accepted across the region, regardless of which principality or duchy had issued them. There were no tariffs either and no restrictions on cross-border investment. There was even a mechanism for reining in fiscally highly incompetent or plain crazy rulers through a supra-national arbitration body that only sprang into action upon special request (when such requests were deemed reasonable). Taxes as a rule didn’t exceed a level of 10%, as any attempt to impose higher taxes would lead to an exodus of people from the territory concerned. Not everything was perfect of course, but let us just note that despite a lack of democracy, there was no lack of freedom. Check out some of our previous articles on this topic for additional color: “Secession – An Alternative View” and “Are Nation States Beginning to Splinter?” [PT] – click to enlarge.

Those in opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled with the usual epithets by the mass media: “far right,” “neo-Nazis”, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists”. Because of this and other factors, no mass movement has coalesced as of yet to truly challenge the German political establishment.

Indications of a possible reversal of German fortunes, however, have come from a recent poll of Bavarians. A survey conducted by YouGov, a market research company, found that 32% of Bavarians agreed with the statement that Bavaria “should be independent from Germany.”  The percentage of secession-minded Bavarians has increased from 25% in a poll conducted in 2011. Of the around 2000 people surveyed between June 24 and July 5, most supporters of  independence come from the southern portions of the country.

Whether Bavarians or their fellow German separatists realize it or not, the only “political” solution to the migrant crisis is secession.  This is not only true for Germany, but for all Western nation states swamped with unwanted migrants.  Once free from the domination of the national government (and just as important the EU), each jurisdiction could make its own immigration policy and would be better able to control population influx at the local level.

Civilization and Prosperity Flourish in Small Political Territories 

Historically, Germany’s past has much more in common with a decentralized political landscape than with a unitary state.  From the disintegration of the Roman Empire until Napoleon wantonly abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Germany was an amalgam of different political units – kingdoms, duchies, confederacies, free cities, etc.  With no grand central state, there was considerable freedom and economic growth as each sovereign entity was largely able to conduct its affairs on its own terms.

Decentralized political power is also conducive for the advancement of culture.  Music, the highest art form, found some of its greatest expression from the German peoples.  Monumental figures of Western music were financed in large measure by German princes, kings and emperors.  Johann Sebastian Bach’s sublime Brandenburg concertos were underwritten, so to speak, by Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg, while Beethoven received support from Archduke Rudolph.  Mozart was funded by no lesser figure than the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.

Famous composers and their patrons – from left to right: Johann Sebastian Bach and his financier Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ludwig van Beethoven and his patron Archduke Rudolph of Austria, the Archbishop of Olomouc (who died in 1831 at age 43 just one year after Beethoven passed away – not to be confused with the later Archduke Rudolf, the crown prince who killed himself and his lover Baroness Vetsera at the Mayerling hunting lodge in 1889); Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his biggest fan and supporter Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Great artists, outstanding intellectuals and scientists were as a rule supported by members of the elites at the time, who either paid them stipends or commissioned specific works. It is worth noting that the achievements of these artists and intellectuals have generally stood the test of time, which seems highly unlikely to happen with most of the dreck funded by the State in modern times. [PT]

Political decentralization provides an important mechanism as a check on state power.  A multitude of governments prevents individual state aggrandizement as oppressed populations can “vote with their feet” and move to safer and less repressive regimes.  A unitary state, or just a few, throughout the world would negate such an advantage.

Naturally, if nation states are a constant threat to the liberties and economic well being of their citizens, global organizations and states are that much more of a danger and should always and everywhere be opposed.  The European Union, largely based on the principles of the US Constitution, has pressured nations under its sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they refuse to contribute their fair share.

The empirical evidence with regard to political decentralization and economic growth is overwhelming.  Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limits on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states, since there would be ample opportunities for producers to set up shop in areas more conducive to their efforts.

A truly depressing record: today only five countries in the world are considered economically free according to the Heritage Economic Freedom Index (another 28 are in the “mostly free” category). Not even one country has a perfect score of 100. You will notice that the top five include only one large territory, namely Australia – which just about makes the cut with a score of 81 points; moreover, it is a sparsely populated place with a population of only ~24 million people. The two territories considered most free are city states, and the next two are tiny countries. For some reason Heritage didn’t rank a number of smaller countries and city states such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Monaco. If it had, they would be in the top five, replacing the countries currently ranked 3 to 5. The countries with high economic freedom scores are the most prosperous places on the planet, which is of course no coincidence. Citizens of other countries who are not part of the political elites and their politically well-connected cronies must of course wonder why these success stories are not emulated everywhere in the world. They should also ask themselves what is worth more to them: that their rulers are able to “throw their weight around on the international stage” (one of the reasons for which people in Europe are supposed to support the socialist superstate wet dreams of the EU’s political and bureaucratic elites), or their personal freedom. It is worth noting that several of the countries with high economic freedom scores are not considered sufficiently democratic; in other words, the ability of citizens to choose which gang of criminals waving a flag should boss them around and rob them for the next several years is limited. We happen to think it’s more important that those in power do as little bossing around as possible. In fact, people should not even worry about who is going to sit on the throne, they should focus on simply abolishing the throne instead. Unfortunately it is quite difficult to deprogram the serfs, but one can always hope. We are actually convinced that Statism will wither away at some point in the future and be replaced by societies based on voluntarism. [PT]

This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and less restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.

If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migrant crisis before the country is completely dismembered demographically, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots.  Let Bavaria lead the way!

"In The Footsteps Of Rome" - Is Renewal Possible?

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Once the shared memories of these values are lost, the Empire ceases to exist; there is nothing left to reform or renew.

Is renewal / recovery from systemic decline possible? The history of the Roman Empire is a potentially insightful place to start looking for answers. As long-time readers know, I"ve been studying both the Western and Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empires over the past few years.

Both Western and Eastern Roman Empires faced existential crises that very nearly dissolved the empires hundreds of years before their terminal declines. The Western Roman Empire, beset by the overlapping crises of invasion, civil war, plague and economic upheaval, nearly collapsed in the third century C.E. (Christian Era, what was previously A.D.) -- 235 to 284 C.E., fully two hundred years before its final dissolution in the fifth century (circa 476 C.E.).

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) faced similar crises in the seventh and eighth centuries, as its capital of Constantinople was besieged by the Persians in 626 C.E. and the Arab caliphate in 674 C.E. and again in 717 C.E. The invasions which preceded the sieges stripped the empire of wealthy territories and the income those lands produced.

In both cases, the Empire not only survived but recovered a substantial measure of its former resilience and stability. Fortune delivered strong leadership at the critical moment: leadership that was able to protect itself from petty, self-aggrandizing domestic rivals, force the reorganization of failed, self-serving bureaucracies, inspire the populace to make the necessary sacrifices for the common good, win decisive military victories that ended the threat of invasion, and generate a moral claim to leadership via personal rectitude and/or participation in a religious revival.

Absent such strong, stable, legitimate leadership, neither empire would have survived their existential crisis.

But strong leadership alone isn"t enough. A strong military leader can win battles, and a strong political leader can aggregate power, but these are merely steps to the ultimate goal of strong leadership, which is to reform the Imperial system so it once again serves the needs of the entire Empire rather than just the greed of the few at the top of the wealth-power pyramid.

The system itself must still hold the potential to be reformed. If the systems of communication, trade, control and finance have all eroded beyond the point of no return, then the victories of a strong leader die with that leader.

The army must still have the means to recruit new legions, the Treasury must still have a system to collect tax revenues, the central leadership must have a way to communicate with far-flung commanders and local leaders, and so on.

The collective shared memory of imperial cohesion and competence must still exist in the general populace. Any political group identity, be it tribe, village, nation or empire, is anchored by a shared awareness of membership, i.e. the rights and responsibilities of belonging, and a collective memory of the group / empire as a functioning whole that served the many and not just the few.

Once the shared memory of the Empire as a functioning whole is lost, the entire notion of empire is lost.

The leadership in these existential crises of the third century C.E. in the West and the eighth century in the East could still draw upon a collective memory of a functioning empire. Residents had not yet lost the shared memory of serving in the army, of paying taxes, of stable trade protected by the Empire, of a stable Imperial currency, and so on.

Once the shared memories of these values are lost, the Empire ceases to exist; there is nothing left to reform or renew.

We are far down the road to a system that serves the few at the expense of the many. The collective memory of a system that once served the common good is fading. Strong leadership can still wrest popular political power from the self-serving elites atop the wealth-power pyramid and wield this political power to reform the system so it serves the many instead of just the few, but the window for such reform /renewal is closing fast.

In another decade, a living system that served the common good rather than just the interests of a few will be as distant as the shattered monuments of ancient Rome.

Doug Casey On The Plague Of Cultural Marxists

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Nick Giambruno: What exactly are Cultural Marxists, and how are they, and political correctness, contributing to the decline of Western Civilization?

Doug Casey: Economic Marxism was intellectually debunked decades ago. With the collapse of the USSR, and radical changes in China, the man in the street became aware that the “intellectuals” were fools. And that is reinforced by the ongoing disasters in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. So, since they recognize that there’s nothing to steal if they implement Marxian economic policies, most “intellectuals” no longer talk about them.

Cultural Marxism, however, is just as destructive. It divides people not into economic classes, but cultural classes. You’re no longer an individual—you’re part of a gender, or a race, or some other group. Undoubtedly one being discriminated against by white males who—not just coincidentally—are largely responsible for Western Civilization.

I despise the wave of “politically correct” thought that’s washed over the world like a tidal wave of raw sewage. I remember when I first heard the term used. I believe it was on Saturday Night Live in the early 80’s. At the time I thought it was a joke…

A word Cultural Marxists use a lot lately is diversity. “We’ve got to have diversity.” No, we don’t have to have diversity. There’s zero logical or moral reason why every room should have a quota of blacks, Hispanics, LGBT’s, women, or whatever. It’s extremely stupid to have people qualify for something based upon accidental characteristics. It encourages them to view themselves not as individuals, but members of a group. So it actually foments class warfare.

I occasionally like to go to a men’s club. It’s odd that men are never invited to ladies’ functions - and I don’t care. Everyone should associate with whomever they like. People who use the State to impose their opinions on others, or approve of it, are essentially criminal personalities. I avoid them at all costs.

In fact, birds of a feather usually flock together. This is perfectly natural. You don’t need diversity; it’s not a necessarily positive value, it’s a neutral preference. If you want it in your club, fine. But freedom of association is far, far more important.

I form my friendships based upon neither diversity nor a lack of diversity, although there’s a natural, genetically based tendency to associate with people like yourself. I form my friendships based upon the character and the beliefs that a person has. The attributes that create diversity are stupid accidentals. The fact that diversity is emphasized draws attention to incidentals like race, sex, and gender, and diverts it from important things like character and beliefs. Diversity has become destructive. Cultural Marxists love “diversity” because, in fact, they actually hate people. And themselves. They want to cause conflicts that work to destroy Western Civilization—which they also hate.

Nick Giambruno: How does the migrant crisis in Europe relate to all of this?

Doug Casey: First, let me say that I’m all for immigration and completely open borders to enable opportunity seekers from anyplace to move anyplace else. With two big, critically important, caveats: 1) there can be no welfare or free government services, so everyone has to pay his own way, and no freeloaders are attracted 2) all property is privately owned, to minimize the possibility of squatter camps full of beggars.

In the absence of welfare benefits, immigrants are usually the best of people because you get mobile, aggressive, and opportunity-seeking people that want to leave a dead old culture for a vibrant new one. The millions of immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had zero in the way of state support.

But what is going on in Europe today is entirely different. The migrants coming to Europe aren’t being attracted by opportunity in the new land so much as the welfare benefits and the soft life. When they arrive, they expect free food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment—totally unlike past immigrants. For the most part they are unskilled and poorly educated. And 99% of them will stay that way, because it takes generations to change cultural attitudes. Few of them will ever become self-supporting.

What we’re talking about here is the migration of millions of people of different language, different race, different religion, different culture, different mode of living. If you"re an alien and you"re 1 out of 10,000, or 1,000, or 100, you"re a curiosity, an interesting outsider. But an influx of millions of migrants is only going to destroy the old culture, and guarantee antagonism—especially when the locals have to pay for it. In many ways, what’s happening now isn’t just comparable to what happened 2,000 years ago with the migration of barbarians into the Roman Empire. It’s potentially much more serious.

Nick Giambruno: What’s the welfare state’s role in all this?

Doug Casey: The State now pays for food, housing, schooling, and even cell phones for the “disadvantaged.” The next step will likely be some type of guaranteed income. All these things only serve to relieve the “disadvantaged” of personal responsibility for their own lives, which acts to cement them to the bottom of society—while slowly bankrupting the country as a whole.

The welfare state must be abolished, pulled out by its roots, and debunked intellectually and psychologically. If you want to help a deserving individual on your own, great. But to make it part of the State is idiotic—except, of course, for politicians that need votes.

Nick Giambruno: I recently read an article by arch-neocon Charles Krauthammer. He claimed that the failure of the US to more forcefully interfere in Syria is an indication of the West’s decline. What’s your take?

Doug Casey: I despise Krauthammer, and his ilk. But, that said, I believe he dislikes me much more than I do him. He’s one of those creatures who thrive within the swamp circled by the Washington Beltway. His prescriptions are almost universally wrong-headed. Which is to be expected from a neocon, a fan of both the warfare state and the welfare state.

I’ve debated Charles on three separate occasions. He has a high IQ, but his ideas are quite stupid—if we define stupidity as an unwitting tendency to self-destruction. I recently discovered that he is also a leading bioethicist—which I didn’t know when I did an essay on that pernicious group of busybodies.

Nick Giambruno: Webster’s defines bioethics as “a discipline dealing with the ethical implications of biological research and applications especially in medicine.” What’s so pernicious about that?

Doug Casey: Bioethics is a phony science, recently concocted by people working for pharmaceutical companies, governments, and medical institutions looking for excuses to justify what they have already decided to do.

A bioethicist is someone who"s supposed to determine the right and wrong of these things. I consider them self-appointed censors pandering to dimwits apparently incapable of thinking out psychological/ethical/economic dilemmas on their own.

That’s dangerous enough, but these are not just fools sowing confusion, they are mostly of a particular mindset—that is to say, they are a bunch of collectivists and statists—who pretend to be objective. Worse, they espouse policies with wide-reaching implications, almost universally wrong-headed and disastrous, which are a reeking part of the rotting fabric of what was once American society.

But what really gets me about these bioethicists is that they are not technical experts contributing to debates among scientists—they"re just a bunch of busybodies who want to tell everyone else what to do, based on their own opinions of morality and notions of political correctness. This is especially dangerous, because people make decisions and act based on their ideas of what is right and wrong—on moral grounds. By setting themselves up as the great determiners of what is ethically correct, these supposed experts become a sort of new secular priesthood to guide us all. They"re worse than run-of-the-mill busybodies, however; they want to play the role of Gríma Wormtongue in counseling rulers. They are generally sociopaths who want us to accept their statist, collectivist ethics, and thereby exert control over the direction of society, taking it down paths they deem best.

These so-called ethical experts insinuate themselves into the bureaucratic machinery of the State, into the flow of intellectual and academic debate, into the course material taught at universities, and they exert influence.

It’s especially dangerous because when people read about a consensus of Ph.D.s agreeing that X or Y is ethical, they may be seduced into letting these others do their ethical thinking for them, instead of holding on to the vital responsibility of thinking through ethical matters for themselves.

From the beginning of the Dark Ages up until the early 1500s, the Church of Rome was the arbiter of morality in the West; that was highly problematical, because it substituted the judgment of some priest for that of each individual. It"s one reason that the medieval era was so backward.

Individual responsibility to understand ethics and act accordingly is a cornerstone of Western Civilization, going all the way back to the Greeks. It"s what the play Antigone is all about. This is one reason that Islamic countries are basket cases—they’re at the same stage of philosophical evolution as the West was in the medieval era.

Anyway, the decline of religion in the West over the last century—a trend I applaud for many reasons, but won’t go into now—has left something of a moral vacuum. It’s been partially filled by secular religions like Marxism, but Marxism has been debunked everywhere but on college campuses… so the bioethicists are the latest fad trying to fill the space.

Individual responsibility, rather than diffuse responsibility among classes of people, is a major reason for the individual accomplishments and innovations that led the West to global eminence. Bioethicists are trying to set themselves up as a new priesthood. If they succeed, it would reverse an essential element of Western thought. Bioethicists are irksome because they’re a visible cutting edge of the knife destroying the foundations of Western Civilization, and yet they are given unearned respect and material prosperity.

Nick Giambruno: Can President Trump, or anyone, for that matter, reverse the decline of Western Civilization?

Doug Casey: Once an empire starts falling apart, trying to stop it is like trying to stop a tree from falling once its roots have rotted. It can’t be done, and it’s best not to be around when it happens.

The Cultural Marxists and other enemies of Western Civilization are in total control of the education system, so the next several generations of young people are corrupted. They control the media, so they control the prevailing intellectual climate. They control the NGOs, and the “think tanks” that infest DC and other major capitals. They control the Deep State.

So, no, Trump can’t reverse it. Among other reasons because he himself doesn’t have a philosophical or ethical core. He’s just a businessman; his object is just to make things more efficient. Like Mussolini, to make the trains run on time, as it were. He’s a good influence in that he hates the Cultural Marxists, and they hate him. But it’s not like he can offer a positive alternative for people to believe in.

Nick Giambruno: What’s the bottom line here?

Doug Casey: I always like to try to turn a lemon into lemonade. But it’s impossible if someone drops a 500-pound bomb on your kitchen, and follows it up with a poison gas attack. That said, I like to do what I can. Not because I expect success, but because it’s the right thing to do. And that is as important, from a personal viewpoint, as anything in the world.

Nick Giambruno: Thanks, Doug, until next time.

Doug Casey: Thanks, Nick.

*  *  *

There’s major turmoil ahead for Western Civilization... and it could be catastrophic for global currency and stock markets. We expect the fallout to be far worse than 2008. Most investors can’t handle that sort of chaos. But Doug Casey and his team know how to turn it into huge profits. They’re sharing need-to-know information about the coming global economic meltdown in this time-sensitive video. Click here to watch it.

Are We Really That Divided?

Authored by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

If we don"t challenge these poisonous polarizing binaries, they may well trigger the accidental suicide of our polity.

If there is any statement about politics in America that qualifies as as a truism accepted by virtually everyone, left, right or independent, it"s that America is a deeply divided nation. But is this really true?

Like everyone else, I too accepted that the line between Hillary supporters and detractors, and Trump supporters and detractors, was about as "either/or" as real life gets.

But are we really that divided? A fascinating 55-minute lecture by historian Michael Kulikowski entitled The Accidental Suicide of the Roman Empire has made me question this consensus certitude.

Maybe the real driver of this division is devisive language--more specifically, language that is designed to drive a wedge between us. In other words, maybe the divisions are an intentional consequence of the language we"re using.

Kulikowski makes a number of nuanced arguments in his talk, but his primary point is that the late-stage Roman Empire collapsed partly as an unintended consequence of rhetorical binaries, polarizing rhetoric that lumped an extremely diverse Imperial populace into false binaries: Roman or Barbarian, Christian or heretic, and so on.

The actual lived reality was completely different from these artificial either-or binary classifications. As Kulikowski explains (and anyone who has read a modern history of late-stage Rome will know this from other accounts), many "Roman generals" were "Barbarian" by birth, and the boundary between "Roman citizen" and "Barbarian" was porous on purpose.

Rome had prospered by ensuring the boundary was porous (not counting slaves, of course). An impoverished young man from the hinterlands could join the Roman military and achieve a stable income and Roman citizenship. (Women could advance through marrying into a Roman-citizen family--even one that was "Barbarian" until recently.)

By Imperial decree in the 3rd Century A.D., any free person inside the boundaries of Imperial Rome was declared a Roman citizen. So numerous people of a variety of ethnicities may have been born outside the boundaries (i.e. Barbarian) became as "Roman" as any native born Roman in terms of their obligations to pay taxes and rights to judicial review.

This social/economic upward mobility was a key "secret sauce" of Rome"s enduring success.

So why the sudden fatal attraction to completely false polarizing binaries? Kulikowski makes the case that deploying these rhetorical devices--polarizing binaries-- served the political purposes of warring elites within the Imperial aristocracy.

For example, one sure-fire way to undermine a political challenger was to label him as a "Barbarian." Even though he might have served in the Roman army from his youth, his political opponent could transform him into a "bad guy" by virtue of his being born a non-Roman. Sound familiar? (Hint: try "deplorable".)

There is a self-destructive, self-reinforcing dynamic in this polarizing rhetoric: though it served the political interests of individual members of the elite, it did so at the cost of the entire polity, which was poisoned by these false binaries that then developed into dominant narratives.

Hence Kulikowski"s startling conclusion: Rome didn"t "die of natural causes"--it accidentally committed suicide once its political elites embracing polarizing binaries as political weapons. These weapons seemed targeted to their users, but the rhetorical narratives spread like a deadly virus through the empire, helping to trigger collapse of the Imperial core.

Bloomberg-BusinessWeek published a major multiple-part story in September of 2016 prior to the election entitled One Nation Divisible: The American Electorate.

The story repeats the truism of America being a divided nation, but my take-away was not the either-or binaries accepted by the mainstream and alternative media alike-- my take-away was a newfound appreciation for the incredible diversity in America, not just ethnically, but geographically, demographically, and in every other measure of complex diversity.

How could a nation of such astounding diversity be artificially cleaved into polarizing binaries? The short answer is that it cannot: the polarizing binaries are artificial rhetorical devices, completely out of touch with the nuanced, complex reality of a diverse populace with widely diverse opinions on a wide spectrum of political topics.

My conclusion is that we should be alert to the great distance between these politically useful but systemically poisonous polarizing binaries and the complex and dynamic realities of the American populace.

We would also benefit from recognizing the artificiality and self-serving nature of these polarizing binaries, and be alert to the false and destructive narratives and teleologies they generate.

For more on narratives and teleologies, please read my recent essay The Deep State"s Dominant Narratives and Authority Are Crumbling.

We"ve already witnessed the toxic weeds of polarizing binaries spreading across the political landscape, choking out real-world narratives: diverse populations are being demonized as "deplorables," "racists," "evil," and so on. So many of our choices are false choices based on polarizing binaries. For example-- how many voters would have championed an alternative to Hillary or Trump? If given a choice, would 60% of the voters have chosen someone other than the two party candidates? (Hint: Bernie Sanders is the most popular politico in America, according to recent polls.)

Identity politics is another rhetorical device designed to consolidate diverse populaces into politically useful (to the elites jockeying for power) binary blocks: you"re either "for us" (and good) or "against everything good" (bad, evil, racist, etc.)

If we don"t challenge these poisonous polarizing binaries, they may well trigger the accidental suicide of our polity. THe saying is the demographics is destiny; the same can be said of the language we use to divide or unite people of good faith who are sick of the parasitic, predatory elites that are plundering the nation.

Foundation - Fall Of The American Galactic Empire

Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

“The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity—a hundred other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive a movement to stop.” – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

“Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives. The real service to the state is to detect it in embryo.” – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

I read Isaac Asimov’s renowned award winning science fiction trilogy four decades ago as a teenager. I read them because I liked science fiction novels, not because I was trying to understand the correlation to the fall of the Roman Empire. The books that came to be called the Foundation Trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) were not written as novels; they’re the collected Foundation stories Asimov wrote between 1941 and 1950. He wrote these stories during the final stages of our last Fourth Turning Crisis and the beginning stages of the next High. This was the same time frame in which Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Orwell wrote 1984. This was not a coincidence.

The tone of foreboding, danger, dread, and impending doom, along with unending warfare, propels all of these novels because they were all written during the bloodiest and most perilous portion of the last Fourth Turning. As the linear thinking establishment continues to be blindsided by the continued deterioration of the economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in the world, we have entered the most treacherous phase of our present Fourth Turning.

That ominous mood engulfing the world is not a new dynamic, but a cyclical event arriving every 80 or so years. Eight decades ago the world was on the verge of a world war which would kill 65 million people. Eight decades prior to 1937 the country was on the verge of a Civil War which would kill almost 5% of the male population. Eight decades prior to 1857 the American Revolution had just begun and would last six more bloody years. None of this is a coincidence. The generational configuration repeats itself every eighty years, driving the mood change which leads to revolutionary change and the destruction of the existing social order.

Isaac Asimov certainly didn’t foresee his Foundation stories representing the decline of an American Empire that didn’t yet exist. The work that inspired Asimov was Edward Gibbon’s multi-volume series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published between 1776 and 1789. Gibbon saw Rome’s fall not as a consequence of specific, dramatic events, but as the result of the gradual decline of civic virtue, monetary debasement and rise of Christianity, which made the Romans less vested in worldly affairs.

Gibbon’s tome reflects the same generational theory espoused by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning. Gibbon’s conclusion was human nature never changes, and mankind’s penchant for division, amplified by environmental and cultural differences, is what governs the cyclical nature of history. Gibbon constructs a narrative spanning centuries as events unfold and emperors’ successes and failures occur within the context of a relentless decline of empire. The specific events and behaviors of individual emperors were inconsequential within the larger framework and pattern of historical decline. History plods relentlessly onward, driven by the law of large numbers.

Asimov described his inspiration for the novels:

“I wanted to consider essentially the science of psychohistory, something I made up myself. It was, in a sense, the struggle between free will and determinism. On the other hand, I wanted to do a story on the analogy of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but on the much larger scale of the galaxy. To do that, I took over the aura of the Roman Empire and wrote it very large. The social system, then, is very much like the Roman imperial system, but that was just my skeleton.

It seemed to me that if we did have a galactic empire, there would be so many human beings—quintillions of them—that perhaps you might be able to predict very accurately how societies would behave, even though you couldn’t predict how individuals composing those societies would behave. So, against the background of the Roman Empire written large, I invented the science of psychohistory. Throughout the entire trilogy, then, there are the opposing forces of individual desire and that dead hand of social inevitability.”

Is History Pre-Determined?

“Don’t you see? It’s Galaxy-wide. It’s a worship of the past. It’s a deterioration – a stagnation!” – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

“It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly.” – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

The Foundation trilogy opens on Trantor, the capital of the 12,000-year-old Galactic Empire. Though the empire appears stable and powerful, it is slowly decaying in ways that parallel the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Hari Seldon, a mathematician and psychologist, has developed psychohistory, a new field of science that equates all possibilities in large societies to mathematics, allowing for the prediction of future events.

Psychohistory is a blend of crowd psychology and high-level math. An able psychohistorian can predict the long-term aggregate behavior of billions of people many years in the future. However, it only works with large groups. Psychohistory is almost useless for predicting the behavior of an individual. Also, it’s no good if the group being analyzed is aware it’s being analyzed — because if it’s aware, the group changes its behavior.

Using psychohistory, Seldon has discovered the declining nature of the Empire, angering the aristocratic rulers of the Empire. The rulers consider Seldon’s views and statements treasonous, and he is arrested. Seldon is tried by the state and defends his beliefs, explaining his theory the Empire will collapse in 300 years and enter a 30,000-year dark age.

He informs the rulers an alternative to this future is attainable, and explains to them generating an anthology of all human knowledge, the Encyclopedia Galactica, would not avert the inevitable fall of the Empire but would reduce the Dark Age to “only” 1,000 years.

The fearful state apparatchiks offer him exile to a remote world, Terminus, with other academic intellectuals who could help him create the Encyclopedia. He accepts their offer, and sets in motion his plan to set up two Foundations, one at either end of the galaxy, to preserve the accumulated knowledge of humanity and thereby shorten the Dark Age, once the Empire collapses. Seldon created the Foundation, knowing it would eventually be seen as a threat to rulers of the Empire, provoking an eventual attack. That is why he created a Second Foundation, unknown to the ruling class.

Asimov’s psychohistory concept, based on the predictability of human actions in large numbers, has similarities to Strauss & Howe’s generational theory. His theory didn’t pretend to predict the actions of individuals, but formulated definite laws developed by mathematical analysis to predict the mass action of human groups. His novel explores the centuries old debate of whether human history proceeds in a predictable fashion, with individuals incapable of changing its course, or whether individuals can alter its progression.

The cyclical nature of history, driven by generational cohorts numbering tens of millions, has been documented over centuries by Strauss & Howe in their 1997 opus The Fourth Turning. Human beings in large numbers react in a herd-like predictable manner. I know that is disappointing to all the linear thinking individualists who erroneously believe one person can change the world and course of history.

The cyclical crisis’s that occur every eighty years matches up with how every Foundation story centers on what is called a Seldon crisis, the conjunction of seemingly insoluble external and internal difficulties. The crises were all predicted by Seldon, who appears near the end of each story as a hologram to confirm the Foundation has traversed the latest one correctly.

The “Seldon Crises” take on two forms. Either events unfold in such a way there is only one clear path to take, or the forces of history conspire to determine the outcome. But, the common feature is free will doesn’t matter. The heroes and adversaries believe their choices will make a difference when, in fact, the future is already written. This is a controversial viewpoint which angers many people because they feel it robs them of their individuality.

Most people don’t want to be lumped together in an amalgamation of other humans because they believe admitting so would strip them of their sense of free will. Their delicate sensibilities are bruised by the unequivocal fact their individual actions are virtually meaningless to the direction of history. But, the madness of crowds can dramatically impact antiquity.

“In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.” – Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Many people argue the dynamic advancements in technology and science have changed the world in such a way to alter human nature in a positive way, thereby resulting in humans acting in a more rational manner. This alteration would result in a level of human progress not experienced previously. The falsity of this technological theory is borne out by the continuation of war, government corruption, greed, belief in economic fallacies, civic decay, cultural degradation, and global disorder sweeping across the world. Humanity is incapable of change. The same weaknesses and self- destructive traits which have plagued them throughout history are as prevalent today as they ever were.

Asimov’s solution to the failure of humanity to change was to create an academic oriented benevolent ruling class who could save the human race from destroying itself. He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.

Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernays – Propaganda   

In Part Two of this article I will compare and contrast Donald Trump’s rise to power to the rise of The Mule in Asimov’s masterpiece. Unusually gifted individuals come along once in a lifetime to disrupt the plans of the existing social order.

California, Nestle, And Decentralization

Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man"s Pater Tenebrarum,

Goodbye, Socialist Paradise

Nestle USA has announced that it will move its headquarters from Glendale, California, to Rosslyn, Virginia, taking with it about 1200 jobs.

The once Golden State has lost some 1690 businesses since 2008 and a net outflow of a million of mostly middle-class people from the state from 2004 to 2013 due to its onerous tax rates, the oppressive regulatory burden, and the genuine kookiness which pervades among its ruling elites.

There has been a remarkable reversal of flow of people and businesses – but California’s ruling elite seemingly remains utterly clueless as to why this is happening and/or doesn’t seem to care. When people and businesses flee from such a well-developed region with such a favorable climate, one should realize that something is probably very wrong. Here is a link to a comprehensive study of the flight of businesses and a million middle class people (net) since 2008 (PDF).

 

A clueless Glendale official is apparently unconcerned about the financial repercussions of Nestle’s departure saying that it was “no big deal” and saw it as an “opportunity,” whatever that means!

The stampede of businesses out of what was once the most productive and attractive region in all of North America demonstrates again that prosperity and individual freedom are best served in a political environment of decentralization.

That the individual states of America have retained some sovereignty, despite the highly centralized “federal” system of government of which they are a part, has enabled individuals and entrepreneurs living in jurisdictions that have become too tyrannical to “escape” to political environments which are less oppressive.

The routes people aspiring to become small businessmen in California can take….

This, among other reasons (mainly air conditioning), led to the rise of the Sun Belt as people sought to escape the high taxes and regulations of the Northeast to less burdensome (and warmer!) southern destinations.

This can also be seen on a worldwide scale.  The US, for a long time, had been a haven of laissez-faire economic philosophy, which, not surprisingly, became a magnet for those seeking opportunity and a higher standard of living.

No longer is this the case as increasing numbers of companies and individuals are seeking to avoid American confiscatory tax and regulatory burdens and move “offshore” or expatriate to more favorable economic climates.

2016 state income taxes – to this one must add a more than 8% sales tax in California, all of which comes on top of federal taxes, plus onerous regulations and extremely litigation-happy “activists”. The only area in which California’s citizens got lucky (via referendum) are property taxes. On the other hand, the state has become extremely real estate bubble-prone, and low property taxes are probably not offsetting the drawbacks of the enormous, malignant housing boom-bust cycles the population centers are experiencing – click to enlarge.

Decentralization – the Key to Liberty and Progress

The idea of political decentralization as a catalyst for economic growth has become a part of a “school of thought” in the interpretation of how Europe became so prosperous compared to other civilizations.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe for centuries was divided politically among numerous jurisdictions and ruling authorities with no dominant central state on the Continent.

The multitude of governing bodies kept in check, to a large degree, the level of taxation and regulation.  If one state became too draconian, it would lose population to less oppressive regimes.

Just as important, Europe’s governing system was aristocratic and monarchical which has proven to be far more conducive for economic growth than democracies.

Germany shortly before its unification in 1871 –  a patchwork of competing small states. Note that this was well after an initial wave of consolidation and centralization – a century earlier, Germany actually consisted of more than 370 independent territories! We previously discussed why highly decentralized polities are the best possible political dispensation for the common man and how extremely conducive they are to liberty and the progress of civilization in this brief missive on secession.

Map via genealogy.net

While the economic oppressed can escape among the various states, there is no avoidance from the wrath of the federal government unless through expatriation and that option has become less viable with those leaving still subject to tax obligations.  This, fundamentally, is the crux of the problem and has been since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789.

The chance that a totalitarian state such as California or the Leviathan on the Potomac would actually reform themselves or relinquish power through legislative means is a mirage.  Nor will revolution work as revolutionaries while appearing altruistic, typically get a hold of the machinery of government to plunder society for their own self interest on a far grander scale than the supposed despots which they replaced!

The only viable option for the productive members of society to seek redress of state oppression is to argue, work, and eventually fight for political secession and the fragmentation of states as much as possible.

Decentralization is the only hope for those opposed to the modern, omnipotent nation state.  Moreover, any notion or effort to salvage the current centralized political system must be abandoned.

After Donald Trump’s election, many on the political left in California have begun to talk about secession – normally an idea libertarians (and some conservatives) are more likely to be sympathetic to. One thing the presidential election showed quite clearly was that regardless of the winner, about half of the US population was always going to be deeply unhappy about the outcome. In a patchwork of numerous completely independent territories, people would be free to move to whatever area had the political dispensation they preferred. We confidently predict that socialist experiments would be few and far between if they had to depend entirely on voluntary participants. It should be no surprise that Europe’s socialists are all in favor of centralization and “harmonization” (the latter is new-speak for “let’s introduce the most onerous taxes and regulations everywhere, then no-one can escape our clutches”).

 

Conclusion – The Ideological Battle Comes First

Naturally, before the breakup of the nation state can become a reality, the ideological case for political decentralization must be made.  Public opinion must be convinced of the superiority of a world consisting of many states.  Such a cause, however, will be considerably difficult after generations have been raised and made dependent upon social democracy.

When Nestle and other oppressed businesses and individuals can easily escape the clutches of totalitarian entities like California and, more importantly, the most dangerous government on the face of the earth for freer destinations, then will individual liberty and economic growth be assured.

Currency & The Collapse Of The Roman Empire

At its peak, the Roman Empire held up to 130 million people over a span of 1.5 million square miles. Rome had conquered much of the known world. The Empire built 50,000 miles of roads, as well as many aqueducts, amphitheatres, and other works that are still in use today. Our alphabet, calendar, languages, literature, and architecture borrow much from the Romans. Even concepts of Roman justice still stand tall, such as being “innocent until proven guilty”. And so, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins asks (and answers): How could such a powerful empire collapse?

The Roman Economy

Trade was vital to Rome. It was trade that allowed a wide variety of goods to be imported into its borders: beef, grains, glassware, iron, lead, leather, marble, olive oil, perfumes, purple dye, silk, silver, spices, timber, tin and wine.

Trade generated vast wealth for the citizens of Rome. However, the city of Rome itself had only 1 million people, and costs kept rising as the empire became larger.

Administrative, logistical, and military costs kept adding up, and the Empire found creative new ways to pay for things.

Along with other factors, this led to hyperinflation, a fractured economy, localization of trade, heavy taxes, and a financial crisis that crippled Rome.

Roman Debasement

The major silver coin used during the first 220 years of the empire was the denarius.

This coin, between the size of a modern nickel and dime, was worth approximately a day’s wages for a skilled laborer or craftsman. During the first days of the Empire, these coins were of high purity, holding about 4.5 grams of pure silver.

However, with a finite supply of silver and gold entering the empire, Roman spending was limited by the amount of denarii that could be minted.

This made financing the pet-projects of emperors challenging. How was the newest war, thermae, palace, or circus to be paid for?

Roman officials found a way to work around this. By decreasing the purity of their coinage, they were able to make more “silver” coins with the same face value. With more coins in circulation, the government could spend more. And so, the content of silver dropped over the years.

By the time of Marcus Aurelius, the denarius was only about 75% silver. Caracalla tried a different method of debasement. He introduced the “double denarius”, which was worth 2x the denarius in face value. However, it had only the weight of 1.5 denarii. By the time of Gallienus, the coins had barely 5% silver. Each coin was a bronze core with a thin coating of silver. The shine quickly wore off to reveal the poor quality underneath.

The Consequences

The real effects of debasement took time to materialize.

Adding more coins of poorer quality into circulation did not help increase prosperity – it just transferred wealth away from the people, and it meant that more coins were needed to pay for goods and services.

At times, there was runaway inflation in the empire. For example, soldiers demanded far higher wages as the quality of coins diminished.

“Nobody should have any money but I, so that I may bestow it upon the soldiers.” – Caracalla, who raised soldiers pay by 50% near 210 AD.

By 265 AD, when there was only 0.5% silver left in a denarius, prices skyrocketed 1,000% across the Roman Empire.
Only barbarian mercenaries were to be paid in gold.

The Effects

With soaring logistical and admin costs and no precious metals left to plunder from enemies, the Romans levied more and more taxes against the people to sustain the Empire.

Hyperinflation, soaring taxes, and worthless money created a trifecta that dissolved much of Rome’s trade.
The economy was paralyzed.

By the end of the 3rd century, any trade that was left was mostly local, using inefficient barter methods instead of any meaningful medium of exchange.

The Collapse

During the crisis of the 3rd century (235-284 A.D), there may have been more than 50 emperors. Most of these were murdered, assassinated, or killed in battle.

The empire was in a free-for-all, and it split into three separate states.

Constant civil wars meant the Empire’s borders were vulnerable. Trade networks were disintegrated and such activities became too dangerous.

Barbarian invasions came in from every direction. Plague was rampant.

And so the Western Roman Empire would cease to exist by 476 A.D.

*  *  *

The Money Project is an ongoing collaboration between Visual Capitalist and Texas Precious Metals that seeks to use intuitive visualizations to explore the origins, nature, and use of money.

The real test of the election - Shadow govt. comes out of the shadows

This election is unprecedented in many ways.  Never before has a candidate been under indictment (probably from Grand Jury) - and under investigation from FBI.  Never before have previously private records been shown to the world vis a vis wikileaks.  Never before a non-career politician garnered so much support so quickly, even to the chagrin of his own party.  Never before has there been evidence so obvious, hundreds of smoking guns, like the election official admitting they are busing around voters to polls to vote multiple times.  It"s unprecedented!  But as we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies - the world works like this (but only now, it"s open for public view).  Yes, it"s true.  A small cabal of people who are not in public view, they play with the world like a big Sims game.  If you"re not up to date on this and want a good read about the connection between big banks and the CIA, checkout this groundbreaking work: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  This is a MUST READ for any trader who claims to understand the markets.

In previous elections, well, what"s the difference really between Bush and Gore?  Bush and Kerry?  They went to the same school, and take orders from the same masters.  This election is different.  Trump is a real "trump" card.  What does this word mean?  It"s an ironic name for the candidate who intentionally or not opened the shadow government for the world to see.

From MW:  Trump definition

1a :  trumpet

b chiefly Scottish :  jew"s harp 

2:  a sound of or as if of trumpeting <the trump of doom>

1a :  a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit —called also trump card

b :  the suit whose cards are trumps for a particular hand —often used in plural

2:  a decisive overriding factor or final resource —called also trump card

3:  a dependable and exemplary person

There are multiple game-changers here, and although Trump himself personally deserves the credit for being the punching bag at a huge personal sacrifice, Trump himself is not the primary cause of this paradigm shift.  He"s just the catalyst, and in the right place at the right time.  As explained eloquently by Peter Thiel, if it"s not Trump this time, it will be someone else next time, or some alternative non-career politician who represents the same things that Trump does.  In fact, Trump probably doesn"t know half of what he"s getting himself into.  He can be the first President that ushers in a new age of "reality" (for lack of a better word).  

First let"s give credit where credit is due.  What has made this possible is sites like Zero Hedge, and more importantly Wikileaks.  Clinton Foundation as a model for pay-for-play politics was certainly not invented by the Clintons, or the Bushes.  In fact, in America"s Romanesque ideology, a good metaphor is the business of the Roman empire.  Most Roman senators were in fact, super rich.  The Romans really invented the system of power politics, where politics became big business.  The Greeks were too philosophical and practical to make a business out of it.  While the Greeks spent all night debating what is the prime mover, Romans seized territory, built roads and bridges, and most importantly - got rich.  It"s not so difficult to imagine the ridiculous riches held by the Romans, as we have a similar inequality today.  Economists and other scholars have even pointed out "signs" of the collapse of the American Empire lie in the comparison between inequality, inefficiency, a decline in morals, and a debasement of the currency.  For example in this book: "The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology)" Joseph Tainter explores the similarities of complex societies and implies that we may be at a "tipping point" similar to just before the collapse of the Roman Empire:

• The country is less a melting pot today, but a stew of competing ethnic, racial, and social divisions


• National, state, and local debt loads are unsustainable


• Our elementary and secondary educational system ranks behind many of the other industrialized countries, even as the costs of a post-secondary education require students to assume thousands of dollars in personal student loan debt


• Our national infrastructure – roads and bridges – is falling apart from neglect and lack of maintenance even as our electronic infrastructure lags many of our international competitors


• Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but mediocre by many world standards


• Political corruption is rife and influence is based by the size of financial donation to the political party and candidate


• Many political observers believe that in the era of rampant partisanship, America’s system of checks and balances in government is no longer operative


• The growing disparity income inequality creates class tension and social stress

Combine this with various Roman symbolism, in Washington DC, and in the cult sects the Elite participate in (various forms of the Occult) - a picture emerges of a "New Rome" which may be have been the Illuminati plan all along for America.  But the problem is that, the corruption, the debasement of the currency (today, we have Quantitative Easing) it can"t continue.  It"s a simple problem of physics, the laws of gravity cannot be violated.  The value of the US Dollar is guaranteed to crash.  There"s no question about it.  It"s because of the math and structure of the debt based money system.  The future, is Bitcoin - not the Clinton Foundation.  Clinton Foundation is a representation of how the Elite evolved from a direct rule class system during Medieval Europe to a "Shadow Government" system that we use today.

Who is the "Shadow Government" and who are these "Shadow People" ?  To understand it, you"ve got to hear it direct from the horses mouth- a Washington Insider (call him a Whistleblower, although he"s not blowing the Whistle on a particular company it"s the whole pay for play system) - READ THIS BOOK: The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

Now many ZH readers and traders know this for a long time.  What this election has done, is popularized and exposed this "shadow government" which really is an entire "shadow system" because it"s not only about the government.  For example in Forex business, on the surface, banks are cashing checks and loaning money.  But "behind the scenes" they are involved in much more sinister, often illegal, activities.  And the bank fraud cases have been eye-popping, record setting, numbers like "$5.6 Billion".  Washington DC is a big customer of the banks, of the Elite.  But by far, not the only one.  And certainly not the most powerful.  It"s just what the public thinks.  The President of the United States.  It"s a powerful person.  No, it"s not.  Presidents (at least, previously) have been mostly puppets that take orders from "Shadow People" - Presidents have become like Actors and accordingly, our most popular President, Ronald Reagan, was an actor.  A good actor.  Everyone loves an actor!  But remember what an ACTOR does - an actor reads his lines, and pretends very convincingly.  Actors are not script writers, producers, artists - they are the only part of the creative process that"s not creative.  Real insiders in Hollywood for example know the real genius to making magic are the writers, producers, music composers like Ennio Morricone.  Who is that?  Ennio Morricone is a "Shadow Person" - this is the REAL genius and creative talent behind the Hollywood machine.  That background music, it"s not something just thrown together by some executives.  Ennio Morricone is a musical genius, he works behind the scenes, 99% of people never heard of him.  But we"ve all heard about some jerks like Robert DeNiro, who are paid to make fools of themselves and make foolish and childish statements about Trump and how the Establishment is good and you should enjoy how the system services your account even though you live worse every year and it hurts when they do it.  

As we wait for the grand finale to the play we call "Politics" enjoy this composition, let it be the background music you remember as the Shadow People are exposed this next week.  Turn off your TVs and listen to something that can actually increase your IQ!  Yes - it"s true!  

Now for the real test of the Election.  Now that the Shadow System has been exposed, will people openly accept it?  There"s no more conspiracy theories, most of the facts are now available online for all to see.  Will they turn a blind eye - and vote for the Establishment?  How deep does the programming go?  VERY DEEP, if you are on meds and have a TV.

Thanks for tuning in to this digital production, every moment spent reading and not watching is another step to your higher development.  Congrats!  For a great read you can take with you anywhere on this topic, checkout Splitting Pennies, also available here at pleaseorderit.com