It really is interesting to have a perspective of watching prophecy for such a long period. I can distinctly recall giving a presentation a few years ago, and I had to go to great lengths (with book/article references etc.) to make the case that the world was moving towards a global government and single world currency. There was a lot of skepticism in any audience back then, when presenting those elements of prophecy which dictate such (Revelation 13, 17 and Daniel 2 and 7, etc.). And here we are today and the mass movements towards a global governmental structure are generally accepted and articles indicating such are seen daily. Of course this is just one single element of prophecy that we watch, but it is truly amazing to see this transformation in the general public. 

The first article below is very insightful and may reveal what is coming:




Hillary is leading Donald Trump but a majority of US citizens dislike her according to the Washington Post. Not distrust her, mind you, but actively dislike her.
We don’t believe her positive polls, given this dislike. But even if we did, there is certainly a chance, perhaps a good one that Hillary could lose. Ordinarily, we present the idea that Hillary may win because she is so obviously the candidate of the technocratic elite. But this may be a kind of ruse.
In fact, she may lose as part of a larger elite plan to raise up “populism” – and those who represent it – before creating endless, deeper economic dysfunction that will then allow globalism to be proposed as a solution.



Please note: Before we go farther, we wish to state that we have no ill-will regarding Donald Trump and he is certainly seems to be a better choice than Hillary for president. In fact, we’ve written numerous critical articles about her (examples here and here).  But our job is to provide viewers and readers with elite analysis – critiques of elite propaganda and the dominant social themes – memes – they create and circulate. This article is presented in that context.
Certainly, the Hillary versus Trump presidential election is cast in ever-starker terms, and it is inarguable that these terms have elite-initiated connotations.  Here’s an excerpt from an initial article we did on “populism versus globalism,” which others have picked up on and which is an obvious elite meme.


Globalism is in bad odor [and] here’s a thought:  The way to increase its prestige is to make sure that whatever is bad, is blamed on populism. The economic collapse. The wars. The European disharmony … Donald Trump has been cast as a “populist” as well as a “nationalist.” And now the Brexit victory has the same label. This certainly sounds like a conspiratorial analysis but looking at the sweep of history, especially the past 100 years, we can see that catastrophe precedes global progress.


Not only did internationalism expand after both wars, but it increased in vehemence. A third war/economic catastrophe will doubtless bring a more final globalist order with a full-fledged worldwide central bank and single currency (perhaps only electronic).
Such an evolution will include a comprehensive world government, perhaps initiated by the UN and doubtless consisting of a world judiciary, world legislature and even a single world executive.

Now we are not by any means predicting this will take place, only that some sort of effort along these lines is obviously being made.



Unfortunately, one of the ways that this could happen likely involves discrediting free-markets, libertarianism and freedom generally. This will have to take place before the alternative model can be implemented, which involves corporate technocracy and apparently, a gradual or precipitous decline in the human population (here).
The pertinent, near-term question is how this discrediting would occur. The answer, as unpalatable as it sounds, lies in an initial reinforcing of so-called liberty trends. 
It is indeed possible that victories against globalism like Brexit are actually being put in place to fail. We have this suspicions not because we are preternaturally paranoid but because we are well aware of overwhelming elite control of government functions.

If elites really had wanted Brexit to fail, it seems to us that it likely would have done so. If you are in control of the voting process, setting up a vote that appears feasible is easy enough. First comes a steady diet of “tight polls” that make the race too close to call, and then comes comprehensive voter manipulation to create the requisite “close” election-day victory.

Brexit did pass, of course. And to date, in the long term, seems like a fairly unmitigated good. And it is perfectly possible that Trump may win the election and produce similar positive results. However, In the past, we predicted his candidacy would reignited debates over the North American Union, here and here. That seems to be occurring, once again, leaving open the question of whether Trump’s candidacy is more complex than it appears.

If so, then over time, things would begin to deteriorate further. The current quasi-depression would get worse and worse. The tensions between the West on the one hand and China and Russia on the other would exacerbate along with incidents of a shooting war. Islam and the Middle East would  be mixed up as well.


Would it be a full-fledged war? Perhaps it would only be a steady series of regional conflicts that are eventually settled in such a way as to create a global alliance that leave China and Russia spheres of power along with the West. This, of course, is what Orwell’s 1984 forecasts. It is perfectly possible as well that even within the context of a “peace,” wars continue so as to generate the requisite tension and “health of the state[s].”


The same thing might happen in the US. A Trump victory might set the stage for a variety of other evolutions that would ultimately discredit him and the liberty movement generally, up to and including secession. The idea is that a reinforced globalism would prevail.


Again, this is full-fledged conspiratorial analysis and to accept one must grant a very high level of elitist control of world institutions. Unfortunately, from our admittedly opinionated perspective, this is not entirely fanciful. Thus, even a Trump win is not (best case from our view) simply a sign of the return of a kind of potential Jeffersonian republicanism but may also be seen as something else – and much worse..

In any event, despite impressive elements inherent in Trump’s background and personality, we simply don’t know if politics will ever deliver much that can be construed of as an unmitigated good. We don’t know, for instance, if we can find a single instance where the course of empire has been radically shifted by democratic elections results. When it comes to politics and elections, almost anything can happen …







[This is another excellent video of Nigel Farge speaking and definitely worth watching]



BREXIT architect Nigel Farage talks to the American public about how America can throw off the chains of globalism and once more become the leader of the free world.









The latest Federal Reserve meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is over and so far it would seem that the general investment world is not too happy about Janet Yellen’s statements as well as those of other Fed officials.  In fact, many people are looking for some simple clarity as to what the central bank is actually planning.
Most importantly, investors want to know why the Fed is suddenly so adamant about continued interest rate hikes in 2016.  Only a couple months ago, almost everyone (including alternative economic analysts) was arguing that the Fed would “never dare” to raise rates again so soon, and that there was no chance of a rate hike so close to the presidential elections.
Instead, investors have been greeted with surging rate-hike odds as Fed officials openly hint of another boost, probably in September.
As I have been saying for years, if you think the Fed’s motivation is to protect or prolong the U.S. economy, then you will never understand why they do the things that they do.  Only when people are willing to accept the reality that the Fed’s job is to undermine the U.S. economy can they grasp central bank behavior.

As we saw with the limited audit of TARP, the Fed was pumping tens of trillions in overnight loans into distressed banks and companies, even foreign companies overseas.  I suggest that if a FULL audit of the Fed were ever conducted, we would find tens of trillions more in overnight loans since 2008.
Imagine for a moment if those loans never stopped.  Imagine that such loans have been an ongoing mainstay of our financial system and stock markets in general.  Now, ask yourself, what would happen if the companies reliant on these free loans suddenly had to pay interest on them?
Think about it; what would the interest cost be on a mere .5% to 1% of $16 trillion in overnight loans through TARP?  What would the cumulative cost be on all the loans banks and companies need to survive every quarter?   
In the end, corporations would either drown in billions of dollars in exponential debt or they would have to stop accessing loans from the Fed.  Once the loans stop, the stock buybacks stop.  Once the buybacks stop, stock markets crumble.
Without free cash from the Fed, the bubble in stock markets will finally and thoroughly implode, crashing down to meet all other fundamentals.

Why would the central bank pull the plug on life support to stock markets?  There are multiple reasons, but a top reason is that this is the Federal Reserve’s modus operandi.  They consistently seem to raise rates into recessionary conditions that they also tend to create.  In essence, the Fed likes to acclimate and addict markets to low interest percentages, and then increase those percentages to agitate and elicit a chaotic reaction.

What analysts out there need to understand, whether they are independent or mainstream, is that a great shift in central bank policy and attitude is coming. Christine Lagarde at the IMF calls it the “economic reset,” some Fed officials, like Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart, state that central banks are entering a “brave new world.” These are highly loaded phrases that represent a drastic overhaul of the global financial system; an overhaul that is quite deliberate and inevitably destructive for certain nations and economies, including the U.S.
If we examine the policy pursuits and recently stated goals of central banks around the world, and those statements made after the Brexit referendum, we find that a process of complete global centralization is underway. This includes a push for all central banks to “coordinate policy” under a single directive.


Central bankers also want their position of authority over the global economy to become a public priority. 
The brave new world of central banking is a plan to expand on this corrupt correlation.  That is to say, the general public and the mainstream should be questioning whether central banks should exist at all.  Instead, people are arguing over what policies are better for central banks to adapt.  The existence of central banks is considered an absolute.  The masses are only given the option to debate what faces and what hats central banks should wear.  If we get anything out of this deal, we only get to choose the form of our destructor.
I should point out also the growing trend in the mainstream media of criticism against the Fed.  This is a relatively new thing.  For the past several years the more effectively critical the alternative media became against the Fed, the louder MSM talking heads would cheerlead for the establishment.  With central bankers becoming more open about their global shift into something "different", a new program of stabbing at the Fed has been initiated.  This is not a coincidence.
As I have argued in various articles, the Fed itself may be just as sacrificial to the elites as the U.S. economy.  In the process of global centralization, the Fed would eventually have to take a back seat to the IMF, World Bank and the BIS.  It is not surprising to me in the slightest that the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media is changing gears and attacking the institution they once desperately defended.  Priorities are evolving.
I believe that with the advent of a second rate hike in 2016, many conditions will change.  The Dow and some emerging markets will no longer enjoy unmitigated support, and they will begin to fall going into the elections.  As I have mentioned many times in past articles, Donald Trump is the most likely candidate to take up residence in the White House.  Conservatives will be lulled into a temporary euphoria, happy just to have defeated she-demon Hillary Clinton, only to discover that an overall global implosion has entered a new stage.  This implosion will of course be blamed on those same conservative movements.
In the meantime, central banks around the world are going to start openly coordinating while the IMF will take up a “leadership role” in managing international policy.  Central banks will also be branching out and taking on new powers. 
What we are heading for is a world in which many nations will suffer from reductions in living standards and where some first world nations will be reduced to third world conditions.  In order to normalize increased global poverty, you have to stop calling it poverty and start calling it a “brave new world.”  You have to convince the populace that the economic degradation is not a problem that can be solved — rather, it is a problem we must all adapt to and accept.
Be very wary when elites and international financiers mention “global reset,” or a “brave new world,” or a “new world order.”  What they are talking about is not a program that is in your best interest.  What they are talking about is the deliberate creation of chaos; a slow burning calamity that can be exploited to derive the benefits of even more centralization and even more power.
They will call it random.  They will call it coincidence or fate or even blame it all on their ideological opponents.  In the end, they will eventually call it a natural progression of events; a social and financial evolution.  They will call it inevitable.  None of this will be true.  There is nothing natural about a totalitarian framework — it is a machine that is carefully crafted piece by piece, maintained by the hands of a select few tyrants and fed with the labor, sacrifice and fear of the innocent.
The only solution is to expunge the parasites from our fiscal body.  These institutions and the people behind them should not exist.  Most if not all of our sociopolitical distress today could be cured if a “brave new world” meant wiping the slate clean and dispelling financial elites and central bankers into a bottomless pit.