The U.S. government lost more money last year than the entire Australian economy produced

The annual financial report showed that the United States government lost over $1 trillion last year, which is more money than the entire Australian economy produces.

That huge sum of money constitutes the size of the entire Australian economy; it amounts to a loss of more than $2.2 million per minute. Despite that, the report noted that during FY 2017, the US economy continued to grow and the unemployment rate declined. In his introductory letter, the Treasury Secretary said that “the country enjoyed a pick-up in [economic] growth in 2017. Unemployment is at its lowest level since February 2001, consumer and business confidence are at two-decade highs, and inflation is low and stable.”

Nothing about this debt-based economy we are forced to live under is “stable.”

According to RT,  the government’s operation costs soared by 10%. “The Government’s “bottom line” net operating cost increased $105.0 billion (10.0 percent) during [fiscal year (FY)] 2017 to $1.2 trillion,” said the financial report.

US Federal Reserve rings alarm about America’s soaring debt https://t.co/X8bSTBnCMv

— RT (@RT_com) February 22, 2018

The report also showed the government’s net worth decreased by about 6 percent year-on-year to a negative $20.4 trillion, meaning it has far more liabilities than it has assets. According to the calculations on long-term liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, the two largest and most relied on pension and healthcare programs in the United States are insolvent by nearly $50 trillion.  

The US Federal Reserve also said this month national debt could reach $30 trillion in just 10 years and that it should be a reason for concern. “I believe the Federal Reserve should be gradually and patiently raising the federal funds rate during 2018,” Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Robert Kaplan said on Wednesday. “History suggests that if the Fed waits too long to remove accommodation at this stage in the economic cycle, excesses and imbalances begin to build, and the Fed ultimately has to play catch-up.”

The US has some major problems with the economy that no government can fix because they created the problems, to begin with.  If you haven’t yet started to prepare for an economic crash, then now would be a good time.

Via SHTF Plan

---

Featured Image: Brett L./Flickr

The post The U.S. government lost more money last year than the entire Australian economy produced appeared first on Intellihub.

U.S. Policies Continue to Fail in 2018

As of this writing, the Russian military has had three of their bases attacked by drones. They destroyed six of them and captured another seven. The significance: the drones are of a quality that could not have been made by the ISIS “rebels,” and had to come from a technologically-advanced nation. The drones were multidirectional and able to be controlled by satellite through GPS coordinates.

[Schwarzenegger, in “Predator”]: “Heat seeker, Dillon. Pretty sophisticated for a bunch of half-assed mountain boys.”

Exactly. The U.S. (via Tillerson) released a statement that the U.S. was not involved in the drone strike and was unaware of who supplied the drones. Not only does that not hold any water, but as it turns out, a U.S. intelligence aircraft was monitored in the theatre while these drone attacks were taking place. Syria is still being hotly contested between Assad and the “rebels” who are none other than Al Qaeda that “morphed” several times to become the ISIS we all know and uphold in the manner of Emmanuel Goldstein, the bogeyman of Orwell’s “1984.”

On the front with Eastern Ukraine, the Russian-backed separatists are about to receive a present…bequeathed by Obama, and allowed to be delivered by President Trump, certified by the Senate and all on the taxpayer’s dime. This being antitank weapons in the form of Javelins and other antitank missiles to the tune of about $47 million. Now the President is thinking of tripling that amount. So much for “détente,” and the reset that was supposed to happen with Russia.

Domestically, as disturbing as our foreign policy (and in some ways more so) is the project to create a domestic “spy” service to complement the alphabet agencies. One of the individuals considered to head it is none other than Eric Prince, the former Navy SEAL and CEO of the same Blackwater that the U.S. government gave “carte blanche” in Iraq with limited ROE (Rules of Engagement) and almost no accountability.

Internally, the same draconian measures that were emplaced by Obama to circumvent the Constitution are still in place. The police forces are growing throughout the U.S., and via the Fusion Centers and CCTV networks steadily germinating across the nation the local, state, and federal police forces are coming beneath one umbrella. The sled is still traveling downhill. A slower rate than before; nevertheless, it’s still moving in the direction it did prior to the election.

The belligerent and imperialistic foreign policy of before is still in place, with relations souring instead of improving. In the meantime, we are watching a form of “creeping Statism” that is domestically moving almost too slowly to be noticed, but making headway. We have an Attorney General who selectively enforces the law, and has a “hands-off” policy for prominents such as Mueller, Comey, and Hillary Clinton.

The North Korean threat has not dissipated: it persists. They will soon launch Kwangmyongsang-5, a satellite that will be able to map positions with advanced technology to be utilized for a nuclear strike. From this and other problems we are constantly distracted by the MSM (Mainstream Media) with Harvey Weinstein’s escapades and the “witch hunt” in progress against every male in the U.S. We are distracted by NFL players taking a knee, by Oprah Winfrey considering being a candidate for president in 2020 (would her campaign be managed by Harpo productions?), and other items that are nonsensical and nonproductive.

Other nations are making their move, such as China with a gold-backed Yuan attempting to supplant the Petrodollar. If our country doesn’t take some drastic steps with foreign policy and domestic agendas, it may realize a few lighter moments, but that is not enough. This period is the calm before the storm. Those midterm elections will be along in no time, and the next presidential election is right around the corner. Hope that we last long enough as a nation to make it that far.

---

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

Is This The Most Important Chart In The World?

"This is possibly the most important chart in the world..." As 13D Global Strategy and Research noted:

A breach of the top-line of the channel could signal a major reversal in the multi-decade downtrend in UST bond yields."

So the question is - is an event engineered to slam rates lower, in order to avoid interest expense soaring beyond US government capabilities; or is the event a reaction to over-exuberant bubble-fueled positioning in risk assets?

What is perhaps most worrisome for that channel breakout is that speculative traders have almost never been more net long the long-bond...

In 1998, 30Y yields jumped from under 5% to almost 7% in the next year.

In 2004, 30Y yields extended their drop after peak positioning (from 5% yield to 4%) in the next 3 months.

In July 2016, 30Y yields spiked from 2% to well over 3% in the next 4 months.

So what will happen this time?

Even after one of the worst 3-day steepenings of the yield curve last week, specs failed to cover...

And today bonds are bid further.

Are Governments Running Out Of Candy?

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

By now, many readers will have seen the popular American YouTube video by Mark Dice in which he stands on a city sidewalk and offers passers-by a free gift. They may choose between a 10-ounce silver bar or a large Hershey’s candy bar.

Each taker chooses the candy - most of them with no deliberation. The only taker who seems to hesitate at all soon decides on the candy, as “I don’t have any way to do anything with the silver.” (Behind them is a coin shop. Mister Dice offers to take the silver bar inside if she wishes, but she’s uninterested and takes the candy.)

A 10-ounce silver bar is presently valued at about $140, the Hershey’s bar at about $2.

(Editor’s Note: If you have not seen the video, please see below.)

Mister Dice doesn’t comment in the video as to what lesson might be learned from this, but an obvious one would be that Americans (or at least those who reside in his home town of San Diego, California) are prone to prefer instant gratification over something of substantially greater, but delayed value.

If this is his intent, he’s succeeded well in his light-hearted, but instructive video.

Since the 1950’s, much of the world has perceived Americans as being on “Easy Street,” and in recent decades, the U.S. government has fuelled American complacency through a consciousness of easy money and entitlement.

And so, Americans are often perceived by those outside the U.S. as being somewhat insulated, spoiled, naïve, and short-sighted. But, if this is true, Americans certainly aren’t alone. Much the same exists in Europe, Canada, and quite a few other countries that have, over recent decades, followed the American socio-economic model.

Trouble is, all that easy money and entitlement exists only as long as a source for the “freebies” exists. Unfortunately, the idea that freebies are free is inaccurate. Freebies of any description must be paid for by someone.

In business, freebies are sometimes provided as “loss-leaders” to attract more business. They therefore become a line item on the monthly balance sheet, a cost-of-doing-business expense. The business hopes to make the loss back through sales generated by the loss-leader.

But, when governments hand out freebies, no sales will be generated, so the loss will not be recovered. When governments hand out freebies, the cost is paid with tax revenues. And when taxes have been raised to the point that further increases would be difficult without inciting rebellion, governments generally rely on borrowing.

But, of course, borrowing, too, eventually reaches the point that it has become so great that it cannot be repaid. What then?

Invariably, economic collapse is the outcome. But, why should this be so? Well, when the tipping point is reached (as in jurisdictions like the EU and U.S., where more than 50% of the public are net recipients and the other 50% must pay for both themselves and the other 50%), there’s no turning back. Those who have been receiving the candy have been told that they’re entitled to it and now they believe it. They will not tolerate the suggestion that the freebies must end, even though no further tax can be reasonably levied; no further funds can be borrowed. Therefore, in every case, the result is systemic collapse, not a gradual tapering off.

For thousands of years, governments have sought to appease people with freebies. In ancient Rome, a dole of grain and free entertainment (bread and circuses) helped to usher in the decline of the empire. Like all great empires, it collapsed under a weight of debt and mismanagement.

Much of the world is presently at this tipping point. Governments continue to promise benefits that they know will soon come to an end. If history repeats, they will continue repeating this promise right up until the day when the candy stops being dished out.

They will then say that no one could have seen this coming.

Amongst the public who will be the victims, there will be three general groups. First will be the Takers, those who have been the recipients who depended upon the freebies the most. They will be the hardest hit, as not only will they lose the freebies, they will have neither the skills nor the imagination to become self-reliant overnight.

The second group will be the Payers, those whose tax dollars paid for the freebies. They will be hard hit, as the system in which they live and operate has broken down, although they will fare better than the Takers. They will have the skills and imagination to rebuild their lives (having previously been productive enough to pay for themselves and others.)

Third will be the Preparers, those who envisioned the inevitability of the collapse of the system. They most certainly will have the skills and imagination to rebuild their lives, but, additionally, they’ll have the means with which to rebuild quickly. They will be the very few who chose the silver bar over the candy and had the wisdom to store the silver in a jurisdiction where it was not likely to be appropriated by a dying empire.

Much of the world is now running out of candy. The latest version of Bread and Circuses is reaching its inevitable end.

Replaying the video, we observe Mister Dice offering chocolate or silver. Each Taker looks at him incredulously, then makes the obvious choice, the candy. Each of them gives him a smile. Each is pleased to walk away with the chocolate, but, likely as not, each will have consumed the bar before the day is out and the benefit of the freebie will be short-lived.

After giving out eight bars, Mister Dice is all out of chocolate and he presumably goes home. He has no candy, but he does have 10 ounces of silver. Perhaps he owns other silver bars as well, stored in a safer jurisdiction.

Each of us has the opportunity to make a choice as to whether we wish to be Takers, Payers, or Preparers. The choice we make may define our future.

*  *  *

The U.S. government’s bad financial decisions and massive debt levels will cause another financial crisis sooner rather than later.

Like most governments that get into financial trouble, we think American politicians will keep choosing the easy option…money printing on a massive scale.

This has tremendous implications for your financial security. These politicians are playing with fire and inviting a currency catastrophe.

This is a big reason why we think everyone should own some physical gold and silver. Precious metals are the ultimate form of wealth insurance. They have preserved wealth through every kind of crisis imaginable. They will preserve wealth during the next crisis, too.

But, if you want to be truly “crisis-proof”, there is more to do...

Most people have no idea what really happens when a currency collapses, let alone how to prepare…

How will you protect your savings in the event of a currency crisis? This just-released video will show you exactly how. Click here to watch it now.

Newsweek: “U.S. Government Planned False Flag Attacks to Start War”

Mainstream Media Admits that False Flags Are Real

Last month, Newsweek ran an article headlined (all caps in original Newsweek title):

U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS SHOW

The article notes:

The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.

 

***

 

False flag attacks are covert operations that make it look like an attack was carried out by another group than the group that actually carried them out.

The mainstream media is finally catching up with what historians have long documented ...

After all, influential royal advisors have been advocating false flag attacks for more than 2,000 years ... and false flag attacks are so common that U.S. officials commonly discuss them.

Indeed, there are now so many admissions by government officials of false flag terror that only the willfully ignorant still doubt the reality of the concept.

The U.S. Government Creates and Exacerbates the Nuclear Threat

The whole situation is a “Catch 22” scenario: damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. The problem: we’re American citizens and this is our country. The concurrent problem? It is our country that caused this predicament to occur with North Korea…in a pattern of American imperialism that has been going on actively for about a hundred years. The problem is twofold:

1. North Korea can strike the U.S. with an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack and/or nuclear missiles, yet:

2. The United States government, through the current and prior two administrations has set the stage for this…as either:

• A purposefully-created “threat” to give America a “bogeyman”/Emmanuel Goldstein to focus on in a “Two-Minutes Hate” drill…keep the “threat level” alive, or


• A threat of insignificance grown and nurtured for the express purpose of taking down the country…while reaping profits and power for the oligarchy all along.

There is an American oligarchy. The oligarchy is not only made up of business and industrial magnates, but of politicos and religious leaders. The business magnates need the lawmakers and politicos to give them “carte blanche” with tax breaks and incentives such as government contracts. The system needs the general populace (or the “proletariat”) to pay taxes and “grunt” out spending on consumer goods and services that keeps the whole thing intact. As in the movie “THX-1138,” there must be periods to pay the utilities, pay for the food, pay taxes on gasoline, taxes on property, taxes on consumer goods, yearly tax increases, and insurances…health, automobile, homeowner…required insurances…

…that ensure the consumer is strapped and shackled to the endless treadmill…where there is no getting ahead…. a new holiday every month to get rid of more of that disposable income for in gifts, travel, and heartfelt largesse…a maelstrom of “emoticons” that condition every purchase….

This is the system we’re in. The problem is, as Americans, what do we do? Roll over and allow ourselves to be taken? To be destroyed as a nation or a people for the fact that our government is not what it was originally intended to be?

I ask for you, the readers to understand my point and stance. I know the government is corrupt and harmful to the citizenry, and has been cancerous to the international community for decades. Yet, this is where we live. Do you remember the original “Red Dawn” movie, where the Soviet was taken prisoner, and Swayze was about to kill him?  Swayze was asked what was the difference between them (the Soviets) and us.  Swayze responded with, “Because we live here,” and then executed the Russian.

We the people are at fault for not putting a stop to this decades ago. We do not have representatives: we have self-serving politicos in bed with the oligarchs who are trying to do a few things together.

Namely, to amass and secure wealth, assets, materials, and chosen manpower, and then rid themselves of 90% of the populace…and move into a global governance where they rule over slaves whose lifespans are dependent upon their obedience and productive (utilitarian) function.

There is a book entitled “Rogue State” by William Blum that is worth reading if you want the “up and skinny” on American Imperialism.  Here is an excerpt that was applicable both yesterday (it was written in 2005) and today:

“American foreign-policy makers are exquisitely attuned to the rise of a government, or a movement on the verge of taking power, that will not lie down and happily become an American client state, that will not look upon the free market or the privatization of the world known as “globalization” as the summum bonum, that will not change its laws to favor foreign investment, that will not be unconcerned about the effects of foreign investment upon the welfare of its own people, that will not produce primarily for export, that will not allow asbestos, banned pesticides, and other products restricted in the developed world to be dumped onto their people, that will not easily tolerate the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, or the World Trade Organization inflicting a scorched-earth policy upon the country’s social services and standard of living, that will not allow an American or NATO military installation upon its soil…” (ppg. 23-24)

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations are currently working to encourage the world to abandon the petrodollar, and Russia and China are little by little advancing the return to the gold standard. China is going to back the Yuan with gold and run an exchange for oil. All of this “sticks in the craw” of the United States and the Western Financial, Political, and Military Hegemony. Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are not members of this hegemony. American imperialism is clear, and it is enabled by the complacent, stultified public that has been conditioned to believe in American exceptionalism while keyed into a patriotic fervor when a prompted event occurs where such a fervor is in the interests of national objectives.

All that is happening currently falls in line with this. Two excerpts for your learned perusals. The first quotes none other than H.R. McMaster, the former three-star and globalist who slipped into the position of President Trump’s National Security Advisor after railroading K.T. McFarland. This is from the Daily Mail article entitled “Kim is getting closer and there’s not much time left,” from 12/2/17 by Matthew Wright:

“President Trump’s national security adviser HR McMaster said on Saturday that each missile launch from North Korea increases the possibility of war.  ‘There are ways to address this problem short of armed conflict, but it is a race because he’s getting closer and closer and there’s not much time left.’ And Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions are the gravest national security threat that America faces, according to McMaster. ‘The greatest immediate threat to the United States and to the world is the threat posed by the rogue regime in North Korea and his continued efforts to develop a long range nuclear capability,’ he added.”

So, McMaster termed North Korea as “the greatest immediate threat to the United States and the world.” If that is the case, then why this? Read this next excerpt from Reuters entitled “Exclusive: Pentagon evaluating U.S. West Coast missile defense sites – officials,” by Mike Stone from 12/2/17:

“On Wednesday, North Korea tested a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can fly over 13,000 km (8,080 miles), placing Washington within target range, South Korea said on Friday.   Congressman Mike Rogers, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee which oversees missile defense, said the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), was aiming to install extra defenses at West Coast sites. The funding for the system does not appear in the 2018 defense budget plan indicating potential deployment is further off.

“It’s just a matter of the location, and the MDA making a recommendation as to which site meets their criteria for location, but also the environmental impact,” the Alabama Congressman and Republican told Reuters during an interview on the sidelines of the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in southern California.   When asked about the plan, MDA Deputy Director Rear Admiral Jon Hill‎ said in a statement: “The Missile Defense Agency has received no tasking to site the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense System on the West Coast.” The MDA is a unit of the U.S. Defense Department.  Congressman Rogers did not reveal the exact locations the agency is considering but said several sites are “competing” for the missile defense installations.

Rogers and Congressman Adam Smith, a Democrat representing the 9th District of Washington, said the government was considering installing the THAAD anti-missile system made by aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp, at west coast sites.  The Congressmen said the number of sites that may ultimately be deployed had yet to be determined.  THAAD is a ground-based regional missile defense system designed to shoot down short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles and takes only a matter of weeks to install.  In addition to the two THAAD systems deployed in South Korea and Guam in the Pacific, the U.S. has seven other THAAD systems. While some of the existing missiles are based in Fort Bliss, Texas, the system is highly mobile and current locations are not disclosed.  A Lockheed Martin representative declined to comment on specific THAAD deployments, but added that the company “is ready to support the Missile Defense Agency and the United States government in their ballistic missile defense efforts.” He added that testing and deployment of assets is a government decision.”

There you have the inconsistency that lends itself to understanding of the complete…and true…picture. McMaster parrots the lines of the immediate threat of North Korea to the United States…chiming in, and “to the world,” to bring in thought common among the primates…the whole “troupe” of baboons is at risk. There’s the basis for justification for a U.S. first strike…protecting the community of nations, partners, “comrades,” etc.

But the true “Art of the Deal” is to follow the money generated by the public apprehension worked up through the government and media reports. The money? Where are the missile defense systems going to be located? And who will pay for them? And when will the government decide?

So, Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama is working on identifying the role of the MDA and government-selected locations, as well as Adam Smith, 9^th District Democrat congressman out of Washington. Rogers said several sites were “competing” for the missile defense installations. Also, “friendly” Lockheed Martin said they are “ready to support the MDA and the United States government in their ballistic missile defense efforts.”

Isn’t that wonderful, and wondrous? The article mentions the decision wouldn’t be made until sometime in 2018.  What a sense of urgency for an imminent attack that is!

What it all really means is they still need to figure out a method for leasing property and racking up expenses ten times the actual cost…so that Rogers, Smith, and all the other politicos can line their pockets and steal the excess, as well as grease the palms of a small army of municipal commissars and apparatchiks. Then…here comes the benevolent Lockheed Martin, a “mom-and-pop” store that is just awaiting governmental approval and decisions to help everyone out…all funded by the stupid American taxpayer. The corporation and the government, hand in hand to protect the little taxpayer serfs!

And if the nuclear missile bypasses THAAD and Aegis (that we already know will not perform), oh well!  Responsibility and accountability are two different things. Besides, everyone will be mad enough that nobody will notice those last-minute wire transfers of funds and stocks into hard gold and silver overseas, nor the scrambling of the politicos and executives to ensure they are out of the country or safe in funded bunkers when it commences.

No, the problem is we as citizens are on the outside looking in. North Korea has the capability to hit us and kill millions of people. The truth is that we will prod them into doing it, for one scenario or another as outlined in the beginning of this article. Trust them: you can trust in the politicians in all their narcissistic hubris armed with aggression and impunity and shielded in self-righteousness. You can trust in them to initiate a nuclear war, but don’t worry. They will be safe, sound, and underground in a secure location that you paid for, while you’re barbequing up above.

The next world war will be initiated by an EMP attack against the U.S., followed by a nuclear exchange and then conventional warfare. Whether another country initiates it, or we do is another matter that will probably never be ascertained after it happens.

---

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

McAdams Warns US Empire Is "Too Fragile" For A Free Press

The US Congress yesterday revoked press credentials for the Russia-backed RT America television station, claiming RT"s new "foreign agent" status disqualified it from conducting journalism on Capitol Hill.

RPI Director Daniel McAdams appeared on RT"s The Ed Shultz Show to criticize the move on the grounds that the US government should not attempt to prevent Americans from viewing whatever media they choose.

The move is really an attempt by Washington"s neoconservatives to prevent any criticism of US interventionist foreign policy, he told RT:

Satellite Images Reveal North Korea "Aggressively" Working On Ballistic Missile Submarine

According to the latest analysis of satellite imagery taken at North Korea"s Sinpo South Shipyard on November 5 conducted by the 38 North website, Pyongyang is pursuing an “aggressive schedule” to build its first operational ballistic missile submarine.

Continued movement of parts and components into and out of the parts yards adjacent to the construction halls indicates an ongoing shipbuilding program, the analysts concluded. "The presence of what appear to be sections of a submarine’s pressure hull in the yards suggests construction of a new submarine, possibly the SINPO-C ballistic missile submarine (SSB)- the follow-on to the current SINPO-class experimental ballistic missile submarine," 38 North said in the report published today.

Additionally, Imagery from November 5 shows two larger circular objects that may be sections of a submarine’s pressure hull: "The diameter of the first object was approximately 7.1 meters, while the diameter of the second starts at approximately 7.1 meters and reduces to approximately 6.1 meters. The larger object has what appears to be two internal cross members that could be used to support decks or internal equipment."

If correct, that would imply that the shipbuilding program is for a submarine with a beam broader (in width) than the ROMEO-class attack submarine (6.7 meters)—meaning it is potentially a SINPO-C SSB, the reported follow-on to the SINPO-class SSBA.

Separately, at the test stand, imagery from November 5 shows an object visible at the top of the service tower that appears to be either a launch canister support or launch canister.

This object does not appear in previous satellite or ground images of the test stand. While there is no additional activity of note in the immediate area, the service tower remains in place. During the earlier development of the Pukguksong-1/KN-11, it was removed after testing campaigns. Therefore, the continued presence of this object suggests ongoing SLBM ejection tests. If correct, this is likely a continuation of the ejection test campaign reported during July of this year.[4] Regardless, additional ejection tests should be expected in the future for further development of the Pukguksong-1, a potential Pukguksong-3, or other future SLBMs.

Such a test would also be valuable for validating missile launch systems for a new class of SSBs.

And while images of a test stand indicated continued experimenting with a mechanism for ejection launch of missiles from a submarine, so far, the report said, no activity could be seen suggesting preparations for a new test of a submarine-launched missile.

Last month, The Diplomat magazine quoted a U.S. government source as saying U.S. military intelligence had detected a new diesel-electric submarine under construction at Sinpo and dubbed it the Sinpo-C. It said the submarine was likely a larger successor to North Korea’s single experimental ballistic missile submarine.

Another article in The Diplomat last month quoted a U.S. government source as saying that North Korea had tested a new solid fuel engine sometime between Oct. 15 and Oct. 21. U.S. intelligence officials have declined to comment on this.

Tech Stocks Accounted For 75% Of The Market"s October Return

For some context on the unprecedented dominance of the tech sector on the overall market, here is some perspective from BofA"s Savita Subramanian on October returns, when Tech continued to lead the other ten sectors, generating +7.8% on a total return basis. This translates into a whopping 75% of the S&P 500"s return last month!

Furthermore, with virtually every lagging hedge fund rushing to buy the tech sector, chasing such activist central banks as the SNB, the sector"s 24.5% weight in the S&P 500 is now the highest since October 2000.

That said, considering tech companies reported some of the strongest 3Q earnings results, the best revision trends, and rank at the top of BofA"s quant model, is there anything to be concerned about?

According to BofA, the biggest risk is the extreme crowding and positioning by fund managers. As Subramanian expains: "we hear frequently from clients, "you don"t want to sell Tech until year end." And funds certainly reflect this sentiment: Tech is the most overweighted sector by large cap active managers, displacing Discretionary whose relative weight dropped for the sixth consecutive month." As noted above, the recent Tech rally means the sector now represents 24% of the S&P 500 index - a post-tech bubble high - and a remarkable 30% of all active fund holdings today, the highest levels in BofA data history since 2008 (Chart 1).

What about other sectors: in addition to Tech, Utilities (+3.9%), Materials (+3.9%), and Financials (+2.9%) outperformed last month. Laggards were generally defensive: Telecom (-7.6%), Staples (-1.4%) and Health Care (-0.8%) underperformed the most, while Energy (-0.7%) was also in the red despite the rally in oil prices.

YTD, Tech maintains its dramatic lead (+37.2%), contributing just under half of the S&P 500"s 16.9% total return, followed by Materials (+20.3%) and Health Care (+19.4%). Telecom (-11.9%) and Energy (-7.2%) remain in the red.

To be sure, the impact of tech on underlying financial metrics is also staggering, as the following charts from Credit Suisse show: with tech, EBITDA margins are near all time high. Ex tech, they are roughly 3% lower and in secular decline, courtesy of high barriers to entry.

The next chart shows that while tech holds the highest share of S&P market cap, it is also the fastest growing sector.

And while the massive crowding in the tech sector is a red flag for Bank of America, for Credit Suisse this is perfectly normal, and in a report released today, its analyst Andrew Garthwaite writes that "many clients cite data indicating that just a handful of stocks (largely tech) account for almost half of returns. However, we don"t find such analysis to be particularly informative; such dynamics are far from unusual – in fact, it is often the case that a small number of stocks account for an outsized share of market gains, as shown in the chart below."

Of course, it is also that same small number of stocks that gets hammered once the tide reverses. For now, however, with vol at all time lows, traders have yet to express any concerns that the tremendous tech rally of 2017 is in dangers of ending. Ironically, the single biggest threat to the US tech sector may be the US government itself, which is starting to realize that it is leaving just a little too many pounds of flesh on the table...

5. But it splits along two lines. This is a sticker board of attendees at #FooCamp. Most wanted to see action against tech platforms. pic.twitter.com/sfbUek5vYV

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) November 6, 2017

Critical Threats To 2017's Bull Market - Part 2: Over-hyped Risks?

With The Donald J. Industrial Average surpassing new record highs every day, questioning this bull market"s continued existence remains heresy outside of dark little corners of the internet.

However, continuing his series, Bloomberg"s macro strategist Mark Cudmore dares to mention a few of the more prescient "known unknowns" that could hamper the meltup for the rest of the year... and in the case of today, some that may not.

Via Bloomberg,

Overhyped market risks provide just as many trading opportunities as genuine ones. It’s crucial to delineate what matters and when.

Yesterday’s piece highlighted threats that could cause a material correction before year-end.

Today’s column argues that other oft-cited concerns can be safely ignored for the moment.

Nafta is prominent in the news and any move by President Donald Trump to abandon talks and exit the deal would have global repercussions. Still, that worst-case scenario won’t be a 2017 issue. Even if Trump jumps, he has to give six months notice and Congress will fight to keep the U.S. in.

Will China increase its deleveraging focus after the Communist Party Congress? Probably, and that may hit domestic financial assets. But officials will not want to significantly hurt the real economy and have an impressive track record of slowing growth without killing it. That reduces the risk of a spillover into world markets.

Global yields breaking higher would have major consequences. With only two months of data to go before year-end, are investors suddenly going to believe in runaway inflation though? Given the skepticism shown by the flattening U.S. curve, a one-off print will be insufficient. There’ll need to be a significant change in the trend and there’s simply not enough time left for that in 2017.

Brexit? With expectations so depressed and in the context of a two-year process, it’s not a major near-term risk. It’s a U.K.-asset story, with minimal contagion elsewhere.

Tax reform failure? It seems unfeasible for this to be resolved either way in 2017 and expectations -- at least in the market -- for a successful passage aren’t high in any case.

A Kurdistan-prompted oil shock? The region just doesn’t provide enough supply to be a game-changer -- not with U.S. shale producers ready to ramp up production whenever prices rise.

A failure to form a German majority coalition? Like Brexit, it’s a regional story. A negative that may be underpriced in local assets but not something global investors will panic about.

So, says Cudmore, excluding a Black Swan event, only North Korea, Catalonia or a U.S. government shutdown have the ability to cause a 10%+ correction in the MSCI All-Country World Index by Dec. 31... and here"s why...

Secret SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch With Mystery Payload Planned For November

Via StockBoardAsset.com,

Regulatory Filings Suggest Elon Musk Is Planning a Secret Rocket Launch In Mid-November. 

According to Spaceflight Now, federal regulatory filings suggest SpaceX will launch a mysterious payload on a Falcon 9 rocket mid-November. Mainstream media remains silent on the event considering the payload is top secret. Filings indicate the payload has no public claim of ownership– from any government or private corporation.

With-in the regulatory filing, the Federal Communications Commission says the flight will use a Falcon 9 booster launched from pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Further into the article, SpaceX is said to be submitting more filings to the FCC on the use of “telemetry transmitters and receivers to track the Falcon 9 rocket in flight”, and two other filings detailing launch plans. Here is what they had to say… 

SpaceX must apply for special authority from the FCC to authorize the company to use telemetry transmitters and receivers to track the Falcon 9 rocket in flight.  

Two filings concern the secretive launch next month, one for the Falcon 9’s liftoff and climb into orbit from Florida’s Space Coast, and another for the first stage booster’s planned return to Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for refurbishment and reuse.

Since the payload is a mystery. Here is an infographic of the Falcon 9 capabilities. In terms of weight, the rocket can lift about 10 Tesla Model Xs into a low earth orbit (LEO).

Further into the filing, the launch could occur as soon as November 10, 2017. The identity and purpose of the payload codenamed ‘Zuma’ remains a mystery. Over the years, U.S. government agencies have been the top player in launching secret spy satellites into low earth orbit.

The article states, Cape Canaveral has been the chosen site to launch secret spy satellites. Most recently in May, a Falcon 9 rocket launched a “secretive payload 250 miles above earth for the government’s spy satellite operator”.

Earth-imaging satellites that fly in lower orbits normally launch into polar orbits providing more global coverage.

Such payloads flying on Falcon 9 rockets usually take off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but launch trajectories to the northeast from Cape Canaveral have been used for some NRO satellites in high-inclination low Earth orbits, most recently in May when a Falcon 9 rocket launched from Florida placed a secretive payload 250 miles above Earth for the government’s spy satellite operator.

In the meantime, the real test for SpaceX is for a successful launch of  Koreasat 5A communications satellite on October 30. The satellite is designed for “direct-to-home television broadcasts and maritime relay services in Asia”.

Last September, SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket managed to destroy Facebook’s $200 million satellite on launch. Over the years, Elon Musk via Space X has had a long list of failures:

Interesting enough, Elon Musk’s list of failures goes unnoticed with the mainstream media. Back in 2015, SpaceX Falcon 9 catastrophic error cost taxpayers $112 million.

Despite a checkered history of launch failures, SpaceX seems to be doing fine in 2017. The launch manifest states–13 successful missions.

US launch calendar through mid-November. Space X will conduct a launch on October 30 and November 10. 

As SpaceX gears up for a busy autumn, the next test for the Falcon 9 will come on October 30. Then shortly after, the mysterious payload dubbed ‘Zuma’ will launch on November 10 with the expectation of another spy satellite catapulting into low earth orbit.

The question we ask: can Elon Musk complete all space missions in 2017 without blowing up a Falcon 9?

Is it Wrong to Question the Official Story When Tragedy Strikes?

Via The Daily Bell

The media says, “Jump.” And the public responds in unison, “How high?”

“As high as you ever have jumped before, except maybe after 9/11, or the Kennedy assassination.”

Of course, when there is news, it should be reported. Today it is reported sensationally, as entertainment. Is it meant to inform, or induce?

Which came first, the media’s obsession with violence, or the public demand for violence? In the 1990’s as violent crime in America dropped, the media filled more or more time slots with stories about violence.

By the end of the 90’s the public was clamoring for the government to do somethingabout what they assumed was a rising trend in violent crime.

Was that orchestrated? The government certainly benefits from a hysterical public begging them to help. It certainly gives the government an important role in the daily life of an average citizen. But this alone doesn’t mean that it was a conspiracy. Acknowledging that the government benefitted from the media’s overreporting of crime is not the same as suggesting the government actively pushed the media to do so.

But why not wonder? Exercise those thought processes.

It is a known fact that thousands of journalists were at one time on the payroll of the CIA. It was called Operation Mockingbird, and agents would place false stories in publications like the New York Times, and Time.

So when it comes to the case of the fake 90’s crime wave, it makes sense to wonder if a similar program still exists. The courts have ruled that FBI agents can legally impersonate journalists in the course of an investigation.

Do we need to discover the actual program in order to speculate? Well, I certainly wouldn’t say that it is happening without knowing for sure. But we can acknowledge a historical fact and draw a parallel between that and a similar contemporary trend. In such circumstances, it makes sense to be skeptical.

Either way, we shouldn’t fall prey to the media’s manipulations about such things, regardless of the catalyst. So why not remind people that in the past, lies from the government shaped public opinion?

But there are some cases when questioning, wondering, and speculating is considered downright wrong.

When it is most important to speak freely, you can’t.

How do I walk the line between my inherent mistrust of the government media complex and sincere compassion and empathy for victims of tragedy?

Is it wrong to question official narratives after a tragic event? Is it disrespectful to wonder if there isn’t more to the story? Should I censor myself to avoid appearing insensitive, when I want to talk about inconsistencies in the media tale, or the motives that various groups could have to lie about such events?

I think it is especially important to be able to talk freely when it comes to tragedy. The more potential an event has for exploitation, the more possibilities should be explored.

If we are conditioned to hold our tongues, to suppress our curiosity and skepticism when it comes to tragedy, then the worst actors in any given situation win. Those in power need only create a tragedy, and it becomes impossible to question the official narrative. Otherwise, you are disrespectful and uncaring.

When someone is gravely wounded, you don’t slap a band-aid over it. You’ve got to clean out the wound. And that hurts in the moment. But in the long run, it is necessary to prevent infection.

We should wonder if 9/11 was a false flag attack. I don’t think it is disrespectful to the victims to do so. I think it would be more disrespectful to unquestioningly believe the official story. The official story comes from the people who have the most to gain.

Did the terrorists who carried out the attack on the twin towers have anything to gain? Well maybe if they believed the whole 72 virgins thing. But in real life, they died. Suiciding bombing is a thing that people do, however, so it certainly can’t be ruled out.

Did Osama Bin Laden have a lot to gain? Well again, it is tough to understand the motivation of terrorists. Apparently, they think killing innocent people accomplishes something. But now he is dead.

And what about the official storytellers, the ones who investigated, and revealed the true culprits behind 9/11?

Their gains remain. They gained the power to easily declare wars and conduct military operations. Money was poured into the defense budget. Agencies like Homeland Security and the TSA sprang into existence.

Attention was diverted from missing money at the Pentagon. The PATRIOT Act was passed. Due process was no longer a concern.

“Mission Accomplished” in Iraq; the glory of killing Bin Laden. The public became desensitized to war. America helped toppled regimes in Libya and Egypt, and support a civil war in Syria.

These things alone don’t prove anything. But it looks awfully suspicious. The ones who we rely on for information about what happened had the most to gain from the attack. They are the ones who will “solve” the problems.

It is a conflict of interest even if the official story is true. It just so happens that their recommendations on the best course of action were the very things that would grow their power, expand their budget, and swell their ranks.

Again we have a historical fact to turn to for comparison. The Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy floated the idea of carrying out a false flag against American citizens to get them involved in a war with Cuba. It was called Operation Northwoods. Kennedy told them if they ever mentioned the idea of murdering innocent Americans again, he would have them tried for treason.

Well, we all know what happened to Kennedy, but that is a whole rabbit hole of its own. What we know for sure, is that as early as the 1960’s people in the U.S. government wanted to commit false flag attacks against Americans to provoke war. And the leader most vehemently opposed was assassinated.

Incidentally, the Kennedy Administration approved of Operation Mockingbird.

May I Speak Freely?

I want to wonder, and I want to speculate. I get as angry and sad as anyone else with a properly developed conscience when horrible things happen. I want those responsible held accountable. And it is against my skeptical nature to accept an official story without digging for more evidence. Horror does not paralyze my desire to question the official narrative and wonder about inconsistencies.

One thing that strikes me about all of the mass shootings of the past few years, is the great diversity in location and venue.

A college in Virginia. An elementary school in Connecticut. A mall in Washington. A nightclub in Florida. A church in North Carolina. A movie theater in Colorado. A political meet and greet in Arizona. The streets of California. A concert on the Vegas strip.

If someone wanted to strike fear into the hearts of Americans, they could not have chosen a better range of targets. The message would be whatever place you live, wherever you go in public, whatever your age, job, or social status, you are not safe.

Maybe that is the truth. And maybe it is random.

We are told these were all carried out by lone a lone gunman–or a married couple in one case.

But why are there so often witness reports of a second gunman? Could it be chalked up to confusion?

The victims tragically lost their lives. Their families lost loved ones, which will impact them for the rest of their lives. The American people lose their sense of security and their rights. Relationships deteriorate as bitter disagreements turn personal, blame abounds, fingers point, defenses go up.

And after so many tragedies, the culprit is left dead. Is that justice?

Who benefits? The dead guy on the 32nd floor?

The Democrats who want gun control? The Republicans who want militarized police? The media who get a bump in ratings? The Generals who want war? A government that “never let(s) a good crisis go to waste”?

I want this madness to stop. We know how the media wants it to play out. They will get their ratings with division and bitter disagreement. The government always gets more power, more relevance, more opportunity to insert itself into the everyday lives of Americans.

That is why it is so necessary to look deeper, to ask those tough questions that we don’t even want to consider as a possibility. We can’t sit by silently wondering if we are being told the truth or fed lies. It is not disrespectful to question the official story. It would be a miscarriage of justice to accept it without protest, as we are told is what should be done in times of crisis.

The only other option is to play into the hands of the media and government, whether they be orchestrators or opportunists. When we replay the same old arguments and put forth the same stale solutions, when we look to them for information and solutions, they win.

Question everything. Clean out the wounds. It may hurt to get in there deep. But if we don’t, the infection will grow and fester, as it always has before.

Warren Buffett Reveals His Biggest Fear

Bloomberg’s David Westin spoke with Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett on his 87th birthday before his charity auction lunch at Smith & Wollensky’s in New York.

Among the topics discussed was the Fed"s upcoming balance sheet normalization: Buffett told Westin that the Federal Reserve will be “very careful” with how they handle quantitative easing as the Fed may have to find buyers for "trillions" in assets. Predictably, Buffett argued in support of QE which added tens of billions to his net worth: “[QE] did wonders for us coming out of 2008. Without it we would have gone back to the economics of 100 years ago. If the Fed had not been there to ease, we would have had a far different recovery. I think the Fed has overwhelmingly done the right thing. Now, we’ve never gone through a period like this and how it will all work out, we will find out. I think they will be intelligent about it but they’ve never played this game yet either.”

Separately, Buffett said the relentless, artificial, central bank-induced rally over the last several years has made it "harder to find bargains", but that stocks "remain his choice over bonds." Asked by Westin why cash has been piling up at Berkshire, Buffett said “it tells us stocks aren’t as cheap as they’ve been most of the time.” Buying shares after the 2008 financial crisis, Buffett said, was like “shooting fish in a barrel”, although he forgot to add that the US government bailing out his core financial holdings, did not hurt either.

In any case, in recent year, Berkshire"s stock portfolio, which includes multibillion-dollar stakes in companies like Apple, the scandal-plagued Wells Fargo and Coca Cola, was valued more than $135 billion at the end of June, almost the same size as the AUM of the world"s largest hedge fund, Bridgewater.

Stocks “have gotten less attractive as they’ve gone along,” Buffett said. “They’re still very attractive compared to bonds.”

Buffett has plowed money into stocks this year, including Apple. But finding new acquisitions has been a challenge lately. Earlier this month, his bid to take control of Oncor Electric Delivery Co., Texas’s largest power distributor, fell apart. That failed effort came six months after a Berkshire-backed deal to buy Unilever hit the skids.

The collapse of two high-profile pursuits in such a short time frame is a rarity for Buffett, who did his last major deal in 2015 when Berkshire agreed to buy aerospace-parts manufacturer Precision Castparts Corp. for more than $35 billion. While he’s made many offers that went nowhere, it’s less common for such misses to play out in public.

According to Bloomberg, the recent deal drought has bigger implications for Berkshire. The company doesn’t pay a dividend and rarely buys back its own stock, so failing to consummate a few major transactions means cash piles up from its subsidiaries. At the end of June, Berkshire had just shy of $100 billion.

Finally, in a discussion of assorted items, Buffett said that the US economy does not feel like a 3% GDP, that anger in the US stems from wealth inequality and when asked what"s the one thing that Buffett generally feared, the answer was "if we"re talking broadly, the answer is weapons of mass destruction."

"Now you"ve got weapons that can kill millions and millions and millions of people, and you"ve got them in unstable hands in certain cases. We live in a dangerous world that way, it"s the only real problem for humankind."

Buffett then said that in this context, North Korea is at the top of his list: "if you have a small, relatively poor country that"s spending a significant part of its GDP trying to figure out how to get an ICBM to hit the west coast of the US, there"s something going on in somebody"s mind that I don"t like."

Finally, the reason why Buffett was in the New York Smith & Wollensky today is to dine with the winner of an annual charity auction that raises money for Glide, a San Francisco non-profit. The top bidder, who chose to remain anonymous this year, paid $2.68 million to bring as many as seven friends to lunch with the billionaire at Smith & Wollensky steakhouse. With insights such as these, we think the many could have been spent with a much higher IRR elsewhere.

You stand a higher chance of being crushed by a vending machine.

Via The Daily Bell

There’s something I’ve always found mesmerizing about watching animals in the wild.

They have the most incredible instincts, honed from countless generations of survival against constant threats.

Animals have a keen sense of danger. They know immediately when something doesn’t feel right, and they act on it without hesitation.

I saw an incredible example of this last year when I was visiting a remote wildlife reservation in Zimbabwe.

It was late in the afternoon on a hot summer day, and my friends and I were ensconced in a hidden observation bunker situated on the edge of a water hole.

The animals all began to arrive, one species at a time, to cool off before nightfall. First the elephants. Then Rhinos. Zebras. Giraffes. Baboons.

It was a playful mood; all the animals seemed to be enjoying the water, when without warning, there was a stillness. The gazelles froze. The zebras’ ears perked.

Something wasn’t right. A smell. A sound. Something.

So they got the hell out of there.

We found out later that a ravenous pack of hyenas was on the prowl nearby, so the animals’ instincts were spot-on.

Deep, deeeep down, human beings have the same highly refined instincts.

Our long-lost ancestors struggled against every imaginable danger. And those lessons are hard-coded in our DNA.

We sense threats. We can feel it when something’s wrong.

The difference between our species and animals in the wild, though, is that we humans have way too many external influences that muck it all up.

Case in point: last week was obviously a tough one for anyone with any sense of humanity.

Acts of terrorism are scary.

And hearing about completely innocent people on a popular pedestrian promenade getting mowed down like bowling pins by some madman is definitely going to cause some discomfort.

But down here in Latin America at least, there was ensuring wall-to-wall news coverage for the next several days in a way I hadn’t seen since 9/11.

It’s all we saw. Terrorism. Terrorism. Terrorism.

This really amps up the fear factor for something that is already difficult to stomach.

So it’s easy to understand why I keep hearing people say things like, “We’re living through the most dangerous times in human history.”

It’s easy to lose perspective. But on the balance we have it pretty good.

13th century Europeans faced a far greater threat with the approaching Mongol hoard.

A century later they faced an even more terrible fate with the onset of the Bubonic Plague, which ultimately wiped out around 30% of Europe’s population.

Even in more recent times, the threat of nuclear annihilation between East and West posed a constant threat.

Yes, acts of terrorism are appalling. But taken in historical and mathematical context the danger is actually quite low.

The Cato Institute published some data recently showing that the chances of dying in a terror attack are around 1 in 3 million.

Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of being crushed to death by a vending machine.

But we don’t demand that our governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers cannot possibly afford in order to protect us from vending machines.

That’s because deep down we sense that vending machines don’t truly pose a threat.

But with terrorism our senses are heavily manipulated until we believe that the threat is far greater than what the statistics show.

The real irony is that the manipulation works both ways.

Just as we are manipulated into being terrified of certain risks that pose no real statistical threat, we are manipulated into ignoring other risks that are far more likely.

I would raise financial markets as an obvious example.

The stock market in the United States is at an all-time high, with valuation metrics that have rarely been higher in more than 100 years of data.

Bond markets around the world have literally never been more expensive… EVER.

In order to return to levels that are more in-line with long-term historical averages, stock and bond markets would both have to suffer steep losses.

But instead of encouraging investors to independently assess these financial risks, mainstream media often dismisses such assertions as pessimistic bugaboo.

Or another obvious long-term risk– that Social Security is going to run out of money.

I write about this one frequently. The Social Security Trustees, including the Treasury Secretary of the United States, state very clearly in their annual report that Social Security’s major trust funds “will be depleted in 2034.”

Yet despite the totally predictable, unavoidable, widespread consequences to Americans’ primary source of retirement income, the public is manipulated into ignoring this threat as well.

Instead of the truth, we continue to hear the same tired mantra– “Social Security is just fine,” despite every shred of objective evidence to the contrary.

We’re also told to believe ridiculous axioms like “the US government’s debt doesn’t matter,” even though they have $20+ trillion of it and spend like drunken sailors.

But no. The experts tell us that this is not a risk worth concerning ourselves with. Angry brown people want to kill us. Focus on that instead.

Human beings have a 1 in 3,000,000 chance of suffering from a terror attack.

Yet there is currently a 100% chance that Social Security runs out of money in 2034.

Only one of these manages to find its way into the news.

Not to mention, if properly informed, people can actually DO SOMETHING about the latter. There’s plenty of time for intelligent people to prepare.

Escaping The Madhouse

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

In the late 17th century, we British decided that, as a humanitarian effort and public service, we’d collect up all the people from the towns and countryside who were bonkers and confine them in institutions, so that society could be protected from them.

As so often proves the case, the idea of a collective solution to an individual problem is doomed to failure from the start.

There are many problems with madhouses. First, they need funding and, of course, the entity that receives the funding is likely to prefer skimming off whatever they can, rather than spending it on the inmates. Second, the sort of people who apply to become staff are often not the most desirable, and in fact are often dangerous. Third, one madman might be a social problem, but what happens when you throw them all in together? Are conditions likely to make them less mad or more mad? (I would suggest the latter.)

When I was a teenager, I had the dubious pleasure of visiting a state-run madhouse—the maximum-security ward, where all the most violent inmates were kept.

I’d been asked to visit a short-term inmate named Billy, who’d been committed to the mental institution for a month as punishment for a petty crime. My purpose was to hopefully raise his spirits, but my one visit there provided me with insight that I couldn’t have gained otherwise and has stayed with me for life.

I was taken through several layers of security before being led through a series of heavy steel doors into a large room. There were tables and chairs in the middle and beds along the walls. About fifteen men were talking congenially in small groupings.

I sat down with Billy. Although we weren’t friends, he was glad to have a visitor, and the men with him were also glad to see a new face. One man was having a lunch that had been sent by a relative, and he insisted that I have his dessert, a cupcake. He seemed quite a nice guy, although I later learned from Billy that he had been a schoolteacher and was sentenced for life, having butchered his mother and a female pupil.

Billy advised me that all of the inmates were easy to get along with, but most were relatively paranoid and could “go off.” He said that there had recently been a bloodbath in the ward, so everyone was enjoying a week or two of calm, hence the friendliness of my reception.

However, soon, each inmate would begin to wonder if any of the others had managed to make or find a weapon. The more they worried, the more they’d try to get a hold of a weapon or make one themselves. After a month, it would be assumed that most of the men had a weapon of some sort. After two months, it was assumed that they all now had hidden weapons, and tension would be building. Conversations would diminish over time, and each man would become increasingly withdrawn.

At some point, the paranoia would become so great that some errant word or small gesture by an inmate would inadvertently trigger violence in another inmate. When this happened, it became every man for himself immediately. They’d all reach for their weapons, and there would be a bloodbath. Some would try to hide in corners, whilst others would attack whoever might be near to them.

Afterward, the weapons would be collected by the orderlies and those wounded would be taken to hospital. For a time, the survivors would return to congeniality—happy that there were no more weapons, allowing them a “normal” social life with each other.

My visit was brief, only an hour or so and, during that time, all the inmates were quite calm and polite to me. I was perhaps nineteen at the time and, later, I mentally compared my rather privileged upbringing with the life of those committed to the asylum. I decided that, if I were ever in a situation that might result in my becoming an inmate in such a place, I’d exit the situation as quickly as possible, before I was trapped in such a deplorable institution.

*  *  *

So. Fast-forward to the present day, and we witness the US government providing a regular stream of misinformation on the Middle East, Russia, China, and pretty much any nation that poses any economic threat to the present American hegemony.

The network news in the US is clearly eating this up and expanding upon it—not only crying wolf, but using a bullhorn to do it. The US has more 24-hour news programmes than any other nation, and many of them spend over 90% of their time warning of the dangers of Russia and other “enemies.”

It can truthfully be said that, when an empire slides into decline, the leaders almost always opt for war, partially because it creates a distraction from political misdeeds and partially because most people will get behind their government, no matter how flawed, if there’s a war on.

This is clearly the case in the US today.

The rhetoric-attack against other nations has largely succeeded in convincing Americans that Russia, China, the Middle East, etc. are “out to get us.” Russia and China, in particular, have consistently tried to expose the lie of this rhetoric, but their efforts are never reported on the US programmes, so the average American has no idea that he’s being lied to on a wholesale basis by his government and the complicit media.

Virtually every news item that’s reached the American ear as to developments in Ukraine and Syria has been falsely reported by the US news, to the point that many Americans believe the US should “go in and straighten them out.”

The creation of islands in the South China Sea by the Chinese, which they have held claim to for hundreds of years, has allowed US military “experts” to declare repeatedly on the news that “We can’t allow the Chinese to expand into the South China Sea.”

And, of course, the US, in the last sixteen years, has invaded or bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., under the dubious claim of “keeping the world safe for democracy.”

Again, cooler heads on the other side of this equation have done all they can to calm down the rhetoric. Even US allies in Europe, such as the French and Germans, have refused to endorse US sanctions against the Middle East and Russia, for fear that they might be dragged into not only a trade war, but possibly a shooting war.

In such an atmosphere, it’s no wonder that the world in general is ramping up its storehouse of weaponry. As America celebrates the creation of a new aircraft carrier, the rest of the world does what it can to quietly build up its own arsenal, “just in case.”

This, of course, is what foments wars, even world wars.

When all the inmates begin to realise that tension is building and the other inmates now have lethal weapons, the question is no longer, “Can I win against them?” but, “Can I afford not to do all I can to protect myself, no matter the outcome?”

This reveals a basic failing of empires - the assumption that they’ll force other nations to cave in to their threats. The opposite is in fact true. Once everyone is trapped in the madhouse together, the moment the violence is finally triggered, all the inmates reach for their weapons. And what happens after that is anybody’s guess.

I’ve spent the balance of my life avoiding madhouses by living in countries that are not rooms within the madhouse. Today, the US is heating up the world to a dangerous degree, and those who don’t wish to be trapped in the madhouse when the tension boils over might be advised to seek a safer place to live before the panic occurs.

*  *  *

Doug Casey, the original International Man, literally wrote the book on “escaping the madhouse.” Now Doug is sharing his strategies in a special video. Click here for the details.

CIA Chief Warns: WikiLeaks Is Plotting To "Take Down America Any Way They Can"

Authored by Jason Ditz via TheAntiMedia.org,

CIA Director Mike Pompeo remains inconsolably hostile toward whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, insisting they are a “non-state hostile intelligence service” and are plotting to “take down America any way they can and find any willing partner to achieve that end.”

Hostility to WikiLeaks has been a mainstay in the US government, as every administration faces the prospect of their covert misdeeds becoming a matter of public record, to their general embarrassment albeit rarely to the end of any meaningful reform.

President Trump had a positive attitude toward WikiLeaks during last year’s campaign, declaring “I love WikiLeaks.”

Pompeo insists he doesn’t feel the same way, and that US intelligence agencies need to find ways to fight the organization.

“I don’t love WikiLeaks,” Mr. Pompeo said Thursday.

Pompeo argued that the US needs to use the Espionage Act much more in going after leakers who aren’t actually foreign spies, though he stopped short of openly endorsing Espionage prosecutions against journalists for reporting on the leaks.

“You said that we have to recognize that we can no longer let Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens asked Mr. Pompeo.

“What does that in your mind imply, legislatively or operationally? Should we be enforcing the Espionage Act much more?”

“Yes,” Mr. Pompeo responded without hesitation.

When asked if publishers and journalists should be prosecuted for using state secrets, Mr. Pompeo answered:

“There’s an old aphorism that says that the law is entitled to every man’s evidence, and I’ll leave it at that.”

Mr. Assange did not respond privately to requests for comment Thursday but reacted to Mr. Pompeo’s latest claim in a series of tweets.

“What sort of America can be ‘taken down’ by the truth?” he tweeted.

Nauseating Stupidity On Confiscating Homes For The Greater Good

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

When it comes to anti-war pieces and matters of the US government overstepping its bounds in matters of privacy and security, The Intercept is usually spot on.

On matters of social justice, The Intercept puts out some nauseating trash.

Intercept writer Zaid Jilani provides a perfect example with JEREMY CORBYN WANTS TO REQUISITION HOMES OF THE RICH FOR FIRE SURVIVORS — LIKE CHURCHILL DID IN WWII.

BRITISH LABOUR PARTY leader Jeremy Corbyn has a bold proposal to house the survivors of a devastating fire at London’s Grenfell Tower apartment complex in empty luxury homes.

YouGov polling found that Corbyn’s idea is popular among the British public, with 59 percent supporting it. Yet there has been a harsh backlash from the U.K.’s right-wing government and press, which equated his plan with a Marxist plot. “Suggesting requisitioning empty properties when empty student accommodation is available locally is completely in line with his Marxist belief that all private property should belong to the state,” Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said.

But Corbyn’s plan has historical roots not in Marxist literature or state-run economies, but in his country’s own past.

To help bear the brunt of the Nazi war machine, the British government requisitioned both industrial and residential properties to accommodate soldiers and evacuees, run makeshift schools and hospitals, and train the military, among other uses.

All Corbyn is asking is that the the United Kingdom show the same compassion and patriotism as its forefathers.

Compassion My Ass

Even if one believes that confiscation of property is acceptable in wartime (try telling that to the Jews or US citizens of Japanese descent), does that make it OK now?

Confiscation of private property “for the greater good” is an even bigger government intrusion than spying on people.

Jilani’s article is so idiotic, it should be his last, anywhere.