Category: Money


Resultado de imagem para Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Unprecedented growth marked the era from 1948 to 1973. Economists might study it forever, but it can never be repeated. Why?

Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Marc Levinson is an economist, historian and journalist whose work has appeared in The Harvard Business Review, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.com, among others. His latest book is An Extraordinary Time: The End of the Postwar Boom and the Rise of the Ordinary Economy (2016). He lives in Washington, DC.

The second half of the 20th century divides neatly in two. The divide did not come with the rise of Ronald Reagan or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is not discernible in a particular event, but rather in a shift in the world economy, and the change continues to shape politics and society in much of the world today.

The shift came at the end of 1973. The quarter-century before then, starting around 1948, saw the most remarkable period of economic growth in human history. In the Golden Age between the end of the Second World War and 1973, people in what was then known as the ‘industrialised world’ – Western Europe, North America, and Japan – saw their living standards improve year after year. They looked forward to even greater prosperity for their children. Culturally, the first half of the Golden Age was a time of conformity, dominated by hard work to recover from the disaster of the war. The second half of the age was culturally very different, marked by protest and artistic and political experimentation. Behind that fermentation lay the confidence of people raised in a white-hot economy: if their adventures turned out badly, they knew, they could still find a job.

The year 1973 changed everything. High unemployment and a deep recession made experimentation and protest much riskier, effectively putting an end to much of it. A far more conservative age came with the economic changes, shaped by fears of failing and concerns that one’s children might have it worse, not better. Across the industrialised world, politics moved to the Right – a turn that did not avert wage stagnation, the loss of social benefits such as employer-sponsored pensions and health insurance, and the secure, stable employment that had proved instrumental to the rise of a new middle class and which workers had come to take for granted. At the time, an oil crisis took the blame for what seemed to be a sharp but temporary downturn. Only gradually did it become clear that the underlying cause was not costly oil but rather lagging productivity growth – a problem that would defeat a wide variety of government policies put forth to correct it.

The great boom began in the aftermath of the Second World War. The peace treaties of 1945 did not bring prosperity; on the contrary, the post-war world was an economic basket case. Tens of millions of people had been killed, and in some countries a large proportion of productive capacity had been laid to waste. Across Europe and Asia, tens of millions of refugees wandered the roads. Many countries lacked the foreign currency to import food and fuel to keep people alive, much less to buy equipment and raw material for reconstruction. Railroads barely ran; farm tractors stood still for want of fuel. Everywhere, producing enough coal to provide heat through the winter was a challenge. As shoppers mobbed stores seeking basic foodstuffs, much less luxuries such as coffee and cotton underwear, prices soared. Inflation set off waves of strikes in the United States and Canada as workers demanded higher pay to keep up with rising prices. The world’s economic outlook seemed dim. It did not look like the beginning of a golden age.

As late as 1948, incomes per person in much of Europe and Asia were lower than they had been 10 or even 20 years earlier. But 1948 brought a change for the better. In January, the US military government in Japan announced it would seek to rebuild the economy rather than exacting reparations from a country on the verge of starvation. In April, the US Congress approved the economic aid programme that would be known as the Marshall Plan, providing Western Europe with desperately needed dollars to import machinery, transport equipment, fertiliser and food. In June, the three occupying powers – France, the United Kingdom and the US – rolled out the deutsche mark, a new currency for the western zones of Germany. A new central bank committed to keeping inflation low and the exchange rate steady would oversee the deutsche mark.

Postwar chaos gave way to stability, and the war-torn economies began to grow. In many countries, they grew so fast for so long that people began to speak of the ‘economic miracle’ (West Germany), the ‘era of high economic growth’ (Japan) and the 30 glorious years (France). In the English-speaking world, this extraordinary period became known as the Golden Age…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/how-economic-boom-times-in-the-west-came-to-an-end

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para images obama vacation hawaii
image edited by Web Investigator
WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

ceo

by Jon Rappoport, Guest, Waking Times

I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.

Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive—and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.

The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

Statnews.com has the bombshell story (July 21, 2016):

“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified — passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.”

“One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells — named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s — are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly — and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.”

“Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.”

“And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”

Getting the picture?

HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.

Their work is completely unreliable.

Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way.

It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.

This is like saying, “Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.

This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year—which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.

The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.

Pretended.

Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?

The FDA knows about it.

The CDC knows about it.

The World Health Organization knows.

National health departments all over the world know.

Medical schools know.

Many doctors know.

Many, many researchers know.

Many hospital executives know.

All pharmaceutical executives know.

Many mainstream medical reporters know.

All medical journals know.

But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.

Blog that.

About the Author
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.
This article (Boom: Thousands of Medical Studies Found to be Useless) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/14/boom-thousands-medical-studies-found-useless/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para The great cryptocurrency heist

image edited by Web Invesigator

Blockchain enthusiasts crave a world without bankers, lawyers or fat-cat executives. There’s just one problem: trust

E J Spode writes on topics at the intersection of science, politics and popular culture. He has been published by 3:AM Magazine, which is currently serialising his novel The Oddity.

On 20 July 2016, something happened that was arguably the most philosophically interesting event to take place in your lifetime or mine. On that day, after much deliberation and hand-wringing, in the aftermath of a multimillion-dollar swindle from his automated, algorithm-driven, supposedly foolproof corporation, Vitalik Buterin, then 22 years old, announced the ‘hard fork’ of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. By making that announcement, Buterin shattered certain tightly held assumptions about the future of trust and the nature of many vital institutions that make modern life possible. He also really pissed off a lot of people.

How? Well, to understand all that, first we need to talk about trust and its place in the fabric of our lives. Trust seems to be in short supply these days, although we have no choice but to rely on it. We trust schools and babysitters to look after our children. We trust banks to hold our money and to transfer it safely for us. We trust insurance companies to pay us should we meet with some disaster. When we make a large purchase – such as a house – we trust our solicitors or an escrow company to hold the funds until the transaction is complete. We trust regulators and governments to make sure these institutions are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Sometimes, however, our system of trust fails us. There are runs on banks. People lose faith in currencies issued by nation-states. People stop trusting their political institutions because of the chicanery, short-sightedness and general incompetence of the self-interested clowns running the show. The response to this widespread erosion of trust has been varied, ranging from Donald Trump’s (hypocritical) pledge to ‘drain the swamp’, to the promise of so-called ‘blockchain technology’ and its associated cryptocurrencies.

The blockchain is the key to understanding Buterin’s project. A good way to wrap our minds around the concept is to think of its most famous application: Bitcoin. And the best way to think about Bitcoin is not in terms of coins at all but rather as a giant ledger.

Imagine a world in which we didn’t exchange currency, but kept track of who had what on a huge public spreadsheet, distributed across the internet. Every 10 minutes, all the transactions that took place in that slice of time are fused together into a single block. Each block includes a chain linking it to previous blocks, hence the term ‘blockchain’. The end result is a universal record book that reliably logs everything that’s ever happened via a (theoretically) tamper-proof algorithm. We don’t need to trust human bankers to tell us who owns what, because we can all see what’s written in the mathematically verified blockchain.

But Bitcoin is just one version of the blockchain. The fundamental technology has the potential to replace a much wider range of human institutions in which we use trust to reach a consensus about a state of affairs. It could provide a definitive record for property transfers, from diamonds to Porsches to original Picassos. It could be used to record contracts, to certify the authenticity of valuable goods, or to securely store your health records (and keep track of anyone who’s ever accessed them).

But there’s a catch: what about the faithful ‘execution’ of a contract? Doesn’t that require trust as well? What good is an agreement, after all, if the text is there but people don’t respect it, and don’t follow through on their obligations? Which brings us back to the crucial matter of how Buterin managed to piss off so many people.

In the beginning, Buterin was a hero to the crusaders against trust. In late 2013, at the age of 19, he wrote a document, known as the ‘Ethereum White Paper’. In it, he observed that you could hypothetically use the blockchain to store and execute computer programs – hypothetically, any computer program. This gave rise to Ethereum: a blockchain-based platform that supported self-executing contracts. The commands to execute the contract were built into the contract itself, and the contract was sealed into the (supposedly) immutable and universally visible blockchain. No trust necessary. Or so the story went.

This had extraordinary implications – one of which was that entire corporations could be encoded in the blockchain in the form of ‘decentralised autonomous organisations’ (DAOs). None of the usual trusted business partners would be required: employees, managers, human resources officers, CFOs and CEOs would be rendered otiose. No longer would shareholders need to pay massive bonuses to hedge-fund executives ‘trusted’ to make decisions about our money. In theory, at least, those executives could be replaced by a bundle of transparent, pre-set instructions stored in the blockchain.

About 11,000 people ponied up a total of $150 million to take part. What had they purchased, exactly?

On the back of a wave of excitement, Ethereum’s currency, known as ‘ethers’, went up for pre-sale in the summer of 2014. Ethers would serve a dual function as both the ‘fuel’ that powered the computations on the network, and as a medium of exchange, like bitcoins. In short order, the value of ethers started to climb, and the platform reached a ‘market capitalisation’ of around $1 billion after the pre-sale. (Full disclosure: I participated as an investor at this initial stage but have since liquidated my holdings.)…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/trust-the-inside-story-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-ethereum

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

 

 

 

Love and Money

Illustration by Dave van Patten

Love and Money: How to Handle Marrying Someone With Tons of Debt

John McDermott

Don’t wait until you’ve tied the knot before discussing your student loan burden

In 2001, Cary Carbonaro and her then-husband were on their way to buy a new car when he told her, “I can’t put the car in my name because of my credit.” Carbonaro was confused. The newlyweds were living in New York, and she was under the impression he was well-off financially — certainly not the kind of person who’d have trouble getting an auto loan.

Then he divulged he had $70,000 in unpaid student loans, at which point Carbonaro freaked out. “I felt horrible,” Carbonaro says. “I was taught by my family, especially my father, to pay every single bill on time. Good credit was of the utmost importance in my life.”

Carbonaro and her husband divorced in 2008.

“Its very hard to say if his debt broke us up because there were so many other things going on: verbal abuse, lying, cheating, stealing,” she says. “But learning about it was the moment I thought, This is not going to last.

Carbonaro’s was a rather extreme case of what she calls “financial infidelity”: lying to your partner about your financial situation. Her husband was an attorney and CPA who thought only “suckers” pay back their loans and concocted schemes to avoid his. But the experience of marrying someone with loads of debt and having that debt weigh heavily on their relationship is a common one — a situation that causes guilt and resentment in equal parts and, if left unaddressed, can ruin a relationship.

Talk about your debt before you get married

It’s far harder to deal with debt if the reveal comes after you’ve tied the knot. The deceit alone is enough to kill a relationship, says Carbonaro, now a financial adviser at United Capital and author of The Money Queen’s Guide: For Women Who Want to Build Wealth and Banish Fear. She suggests couples in this position seek marriage counseling (and that’s even before trying to reconcile any underlying money management differences).

Preferably, the indebted party initiates this conversation, says Oakland University professor Terri Orbuch, author of 5 Simple Steps to Take Your Marriage From Good to Great. “The partner who is finding out about the other’s debt should feel free to ask questions, recognize whether it was a one-time situation or a general approach to money, and if their partner is trying to fix the situation,” Orbuch advises. The responses will indicate if the couple can effectively manage the debt together, or if their approaches to money are irreconcilable. After all, the single most important component of a successful, long-term relationship is having similar attitudes when it comes to money and finances, she adds.

Benjamin Van Loon, a 31-year-old PR professional in Chicago, learned about his wife’s $100,000 student debt load when they were still just college sweethearts. He briefly considered breaking up with over it, but the thought of losing her “terrified” him. After several frank discussions (and some fights), they resolved to work through it together, he says. They’re still married, and to date have paid off $80,000 of her (their) debt.

Avoid resentment

Key to dealing with a partner with loads of debt is learning how to avoid resenting them for the financial strain they’ve placed you on your relationship — and this can occur regardless of when the debt’s disclosed.

“Don,” a 31-year-old Kansas City resident, married a woman with nearly $130,000 in debt, most of it student loans from her undergraduate and master’s studies. Don’s wife didn’t spring this news on him after they tied the knot; she disclosed her massive debt load six months into their relationship, “after we got pretty serious,” Don says. But the revelation was still shocking.

“My first reaction was Holy shit, man. What the hell is going on?” he says. “I didn’t even know having that much debt was possible.”…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/love-and-money-how-to-handle-marrying-someone-with-tons-of-debt-f7b0628500a2#.658johkdw

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

by Makia Freeman, Contributor, Waking Times

The cashless agenda has taken a giant leap forward worldwide in the last 2 months, mainly due to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi took the bold, detested and despised step of banning the 2 highest denomination notes in India (the 500 and 1000 rupee notes, worth around US$7.50 and $15 respectively). This wiped out around 80% of the value of circulating cash widely used by many segments of society for trade. His reason was to cut down on the black money circulating in India upon which tax is not paid. However, from the broader perspective of the worldwide New World Order (NWO) conspiracy, converting the entire world economy to solely digital transactions is not just about extracting more tax revenue from the ruled populations; it’s about knowledge and power. It’s about surveillance on an extraordinary scale. The cashless agenda is about acquiring the capacity to monitor literally every single financial transaction that takes place on the planet.

Unsurprisingly, the new cash ban hurt many poor Indians who either don’t have a bank account or who rarely use one. Also unsurprisingly, the idea for the ban did not originate from Modi. The truth is that India is being used as the latest guinea pig to push forth the NWO cashless agenda, and a particular US Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) was instrumental in the rollout.

American NGO USAID Behind India Cash Ban

In an earlier article NGOs: Choice Tool of Subversion for the New World Order, I described how NGOs have become tools of infiltration and subversion to conduct soft coups or soft overthrows of democratically elected foreign governments. NGOs are the perfect way to destroy an enemy nation from within. By gaining inside access to that nation, an NGO can disseminate all sorts of lies and propaganda to weaken people’s faith in their leaders or their political system. NGOs can also fund “people’s” revolutions (i.e. color revolutions) to make it look like a foreign-orchestrated overthrow is a domestic grassroots uprising – just ask George Soros about that one. For this reason, some nations such as Russia, China and Israel have restricted or banned foreign NGOs from operating on their shores.

In the case of India, there are clear signs that the cash ban was planned in advance by the nefarious United States NGO USAID (instrumental in the bloody Ukraine Maidan coup of 2014). I give a hat tip to Norbert Häring, author of the recent article A well-kept open secret: Washington is behind India’s brutal experiment of abolishing most cash, who outlines how USAID was actively conspiring with the Indian Ministry of Finance to push forward the cashless agenda. He writes:

USAID had announced the establishment of „Catalyst: Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership“, with the goal of effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India. The press statement of October 14 says that Catalyst “marks the next phase of partnership between USAID and Ministry of Finance to facilitate universal financial inclusion”. The statement does not show up in the list of press statements on the website of USAID (anymore?). Not even filtering statements with the word “India” would bring it up. To find it, you seem to have to know it exists, or stumble upon it in a web search. Indeed, this and other statements, which seemed rather boring before, have become a lot more interesting and revealing after November 8.”

So on top of actively pushing India into the cashless agenda, looks like USAID is also covering their tracks and trying to hide it.

Catalyst is the Catalyst …

So basically the New World Order, via the US Government and USAID, had decided that India would be the next country in which it would roll out the cashless agenda, so it set up this new organization Catalyst to disguise the non-Indian interests behind the scheme. Häring points out the big NWO players behind Catalyst:

Who are the institutions behind this decisive attack on cash? Upon the presentation of the Beyond-Cash-report, USAID declared: “Over 35 key Indian, American and international organizations have partnered with the Ministry of Finance and USAID on this initiative.” On the website catalyst.org one can see that they are mostly IT- and payment service providers who want to make money from digital payments or from the associated data generation on users. Many are veterans of what a high-ranking official of Deutsche Bundesbank called the “war of interested financial institutions on cash” … They include the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation.”

Häring also points at some other key people and groups behind the war on cash in India:

“Raghuram Rajan at the helm of Reserve Bank of India from September 2013 to September 2016 … had been, and is now again, economics professor at the University of Chicago. From 2003 to 2006 he had been Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington. (This is a cv-item he shares with another important warrior against cash, Ken Rogoff.) He is a member of the Group of Thirty, a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken. It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriers like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others.”

Astute readers will see a familiar theme here cropping up once again. In my recent article International Fact-Checking Network: New Worldwide Ministry of Truth?, I discussed how Bill Gates (the Gates Foundation) crops up seemingly everywhere in NWO agendas such as censorship, vaccines, GMOs, Common Core education, transhumanism, eugenics, depopulation and now in the cashless agenda too. Pierre Omidyar (Omidyar Network) also got a mention in the same article as being one of the funders of the new organization IFCN poised to become a sort of Ministry of Truth. The IMF is a Rothschild tool and a harbinger of NWO One World Bank. Larry Summers was one of the guys under Obama who oversaw the “bailout”, “stimulus” or daylight robbery of the American people that took place in 2009 – but he was apparently much more worried about what Goldman Sachs would think. The Group of Thirty is a think tank of international bankers funded by – guess who – the Rockefeller Foundation.

Everywhere you look in the worldwide conspiracy, it’s the same players, the same themes and the same one agenda (through its many facets) for total domination.

Venezuela, Sweden, Australia, Greece – Everyone Joining In On the Cashless Agenda

It’s not just India. The cashless agenda is being pushed worldwide. Recently President Maduro of Venezuela announced he was going to ban the 100 bolivar note, the nation’s largest currency denomination. The pretext is essentially the same each time: to supposedly stop crime and make it harder for criminals who deal only in cash. Maduro said:

“There has been a scam and smuggling of the one hundred bills on the border with Colombia, we have tried the diplomatic way to deal with this problem with Colombia’s government; there are huge mafias.”

However as Jeff Berwick (Dollar Vigilante) points out, this is a false argument. There is no true correlation between high crime rates and high demonization bills in circulation:

“The trouble here is that removing bills doesn’t fight crime. At least one recent study shows countries with the largest currency denominations actually have the lowest crime rates. Take for instance a country like Japan which is praised for its low crime rates and has a 10,000 yen note worth around $85 as of today.

Switzerland is a prime example of the opposite end of the spectrum because not only does it have a 1,000 Swiss franc note worth roughly $1,000 USD and one of the lowest crime rates in the world, but unlike Venezuela where guns are outlawed and violence is rampant, 1 in 2 Swiss people are gun owners.”

Meanwhile Sweden has completely jumped on board the cashless agenda. The Nordic nation is on the fast track to become the first totally cashless society, as the Guardian reports:

“According to central bank the Riksbank, cash transactions made up barely 2% of the value of all payments made in Sweden last year – a figure some see dropping to 0.5% by 2020. In shops, cash is now used for barely 20% of transactions, half the number five years ago, and way below the global average of 75%.

And astonishingly, about 900 of Sweden’s 1,600 bank branches no longer keep cash on hand or take cash deposits – and many, especially in rural areas, no longer have ATMs. Circulation of Swedish krona has fallen from around 106bn in 2009 to 80bn last year.”

Australia has also joined the cashless bandwagon with some recent and shameless propaganda. Check this video of a supposedly cool, unshaven guy throwing stats at you and trying to convince you that you don’t need the $100 note any more. X22 Report has also just reported that Greece is initiating a soft cash ban. They are mandating that you spend 10% of your expenditures in digital currency! So the government is telling you in what format you must spend your money – and Greeks are getting penalized for not spending in this manner. Wow. The tyranny is just so blatant.

2017 is the Year when the War on Cash Will Accelerate

You don’t need to be an oracle to see that the war on cash is intensifying and accelerating rapidly across the world. It is a key part of the New World Order agenda, because it removes some of the last vestiges of privacy and anonymity that we still have in today’s world. Without the ability to freely transact anonymously with cash, our freedom is greatly restricted, because so much of our life revolves around the use of money: spending habits, income, expenditures, amount of tax paid, etc. To know someones’ complete financial history and current position is to have great power over them.

It seems the NWO manipulators are attempting to cement the cashless agenda in place before the world becomes too much more awake, aware and conscious. Will they succeed? Only time will tell, but there is still time to stop this agenda in its tracks if we spread enough awareness about it.

 

About the Author

Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com (FaceBook here), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance

**Sources embedded throughout article.

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

This article (New World Order Pushing Cashless Agenda in India and Around the World) was originally created and published by The Freedom Articles and is re-posted here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/01/10/new-world-order-pushing-cashless-agenda-india-around-world/

 

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

640px-vladimir_putin_and_barack_obama_2015-09-29_01

It is my contention here that Capitalism is a fatal delusion, and adherence to it without question is tantamount to willingly signing a species-wide death warrant.

Capitalism as we know it in the modern world is based on the assumption that there must be infinite growth, which on a finite planet means total consumption, total exhaustion of all resources that can be monetized.

Under a capitalist system, the highest goal of man is to increase his desires infinitely, in order to produce the desired goal of infinite growth. By increasing his desires infinitely, man also increases his sufferings infinitely.

As capitalism is forged on the basis of two delusions, one, that there can be infinite growth in a finite closed system, and two, that the highest aim of man is to infinitely increase his desires; we may say that to defend this system is to willingly subscribe to a suicidal form of madness.

Simply put, man will never be genuinely happy under the system of capitalism, for he is living a lie and calling it truth. There is no degree of enjoyment to be derived from the process of capitalism that is not logically offset by the inevitable cost of extinction it produces.

The history of the Western world, and of the world in general, is a history of man falling prey to the delusion that his living conditions are at base inadequate and must therefore be remedied through effort, technics and the creation of “solutions” to his “problems.”

It is almost as if somewhere in our distant past, an individual was struck by a thought in the back of his head that he couldn’t quite put his finger on, that perhaps somewhere something was a little bit wrong or off, and so he set about trying to discover this “problem” in the external world, and began to devise peculiar strategies for doing so.

In doing so, he creates more problems in the process, and must then turn his attention to solving those problems additionally, and so on. The basic illusion here is that there was ever anything “wrong” to begin with. The attitude that nature is “out of line” so to speak is itself perhaps the only example of nature being “out of line.” It is like a feedback loop of sorts, producing a painful shriek from a situation of far too much self-consciousness.

And so man has, down through the ages, chased the tail of happiness, presuming that it was anywhere but right here and now. Capitalism is just the latest form of this primal delusion, that the world is in error, and we may see it then as an extension of the Christian notion that the World is a sinful place, to be overcome, changed, or transcended.

And, ironically enough, all forms of this particular delusion do in fact create a situation of base unhappiness and unsatisfactoriness out of which their proposed solutions can rise. We see this in capitalist societies, which must necessarily produce poor millions so that we can recognise a rich few. We see it in Christian societies, where even the joy of making love has been reduced to pure mechanics, and distasteful mechanics at that.

So one should distrust any system of thought that seeks to alter what is basically a situation of harmony out of the spurious and unproven notion that it is inherently disharmonious, or the notion that there’s some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No-one can give a compelling argument to show why the problems that preceded us prior to these attempts at fixing the world were in fact considerably worse than those problems we have brought into existence through the act of trying to solve them.

Capitalism, and Christianity, among other worldviews, are attempts to bring under control the wiggly world, and we assume that this is what we have wanted all along. But a world completely under our control is like a game we have already finished playing: there is no surprise, no spontaneity, and as such it is as though we have already completed it. All events where the outcomes are known completely in advance may be said to have already happened. And so through trying to exercise total control, we ruin the fun of existence for ourselves, and make the world into a plastic sex doll instead of a real, intelligent, living woman. Through science, and particularly the bizarrely certain forms of scientism that are appearing more commonly today, we are slowly trending towards the same phenomena of rendering existence pointless through explaining it all and putting it under our technological thumb, turning the cosmos into dead knowledge, in many cases, rather than a living mystery.

What we need is, as a culture, to be honest with ourselves once more, and admit that no amount of material control is worth the cost of total boredom. No amount of shiny new playthings are worth the reality of child labour. No economic system can be said to work if it creates poverty as a matter of course, if it blindly trends towards total consumption of all things.

None of us genuinely want this to continue, so let’s just play a different game. As for what that is, well, finding out is half the fun.

http://disinfo.com/2017/01/capitalism-happiness-whos-fun/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+disinfo%2FoMPh+%28Disinformation%29

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

hillary
Gage Skidmore/Flickr

As corporate media talking heads accuse Trump of being a traitor, Clinton’s numerous shady dealings are ignored

(INTELLIHUB) — Over the last few weeks we have seen leftist “journalists” openly declare president-elect Donald Trump a traitor due to his supposed ties to Russia and their “hacking” of the DNC.

Laughably, these same talking heads (and the entire mainstream media for that matter) have continued to completely ignore the numerous high profile shady dealings that failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been involved in.

From direct connections to the handling of the Hammond family case that involved a Russian mining company to selling chemical weapons to terror supporting nations, Clinton has a documented record of working with the worst countries throughout the world.

In late January 2016, Intellihub founder Shepard Ambellas published a viral report that connected the dots between the Hammond family, the BLM, Hillary Clinton, and a Russian mining company. Subsequent research by Jon Rappoport confirmed Shepard’s reporting and brought it to a major TV audience on the Infowars Nightly News.

In a nutshell, Hillary and her foundation were implicated in a dastardly scheme, along with the Russian State Nuclear Energy Corporation,Rosatom, and a few dubious Canadian elite, to sell off American land to foreign entities for the purpose of uranium mining.

Unbelievably, this is literally only ONE of the many instances of obvious corruption by Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State during which she turned the State Department into her own little pay to play operation.

Pay to play weapon transfers 

In May 2015 the International Business Times published an exhaustive investigation into Clinton’s dealings during her tenure as Secretary of State. The report revealed that Hillary had approved hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms sales to numerous sketchy foreign governments.

Unsurprisingly to those who have studied how the Clinton political machine works, almost all of the countries (and defense contractors involved on the other end) who received increased weapons deals had donated to the Clinton family foundation to the tune of over 100 million dollars.

To be clear, we are directly talking about a transparent pay to play operation that has been publicly exposed to include hundreds of billions of dollars yet agencies tasked with prosecuting these type of crimes (the FBI in particular) have so far filed not even a single charge.

The International Business Times reported: (emphasis mine)

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.

That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

[…]

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

Alright so we have Hillary Clinton lining her and her families pockets in exchange for increased arms sales to our allies. Pretty blatant corruption but at least they are our allies right?!?

Wrong…

more…

https://www.intellihub.com/traitor-hillary-clinton-approved-arms-sales-including-chemical-weapons-terror-supporting-countries-after-they-paid-her-off/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Amancio Ortego, Jeff Bezos,  Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim, David Koch, Larry Ellison, and Larry Page. (composite AP/Getty Images)

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Amancio Ortego, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim, David Koch, Larry Ellison, and Larry Page. (composite AP/Getty Images)

The world’s richest people got even richer in 2016, according to a Bloomberg analysis on Tuesday.

The 200 wealthiest people on the planet collectively made $237 billion throughout the year and have an amassed $4.4 trillion through the end of trading on Dec. 27, 2016, the report stated. The rise represents an increase of about 5.7 percent.

Warren Buffett, the super-investor head of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., made $11.8 billion during the year due to gains from financial and airline stocks. He’s now the second richest person in the world following Bill Gates.

“In general, clients rode through the volatility,” said Simon Smiles, chief investment officer with UBS Wealth Management—which serves ultra-rich clients—according to Bloomberg News.

“2016 ended up being a spectacular year for risk assets. Pretty remarkable given the start of the year,” he said.

Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, added about $10 billion, and he’s now worth $91.5 billion for the year’s end, making him still by far the richest person in the world.

After that was oil company owner Harold Hamm, who more than doubled his fortune to $15.3 billion.

Amazon CEO and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos added $7.5 billion to his net worth this year, ending with $67.2 billion.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg added some $5.4 billion to his net worth, ending up with $51.2 billion.

France’s Bernard Arnault added $7.1 billion, making him worth around $38.9 billion, the report added.

These are the current top 15 richest people in the world:

  1. Bill Gates (American) – $91.5 billion.
  2. Warren Buffett (American) – $74.1 billion.
  3. Amancio Ortego (Spanish) – $71.2 billion.
  4. Jeff Bezos (American) – $67.2 billion.
  5. Mark Zuckerberg (American) – $51.2 billion.
  6. Carlos Slim (Mexican) – $49.2 billion.
  7. Charles Koch (American) – $46 billion.
  8. David Koch (American) – $46 billion.
  9. Larry Ellison (American) – $41.9 billion.
  10. Larry Page (American) – $40.7 billion.
  11. Sergey Brin (American) – $39.9 billion.
  12. Ingvar Kamprad (Swedish) – $39.6 billion.
  13. Bernard Arnault (French) – $38.9 billion.
  14. Liliane Bettencourt (French) – $35.8 billion.
  15. Rob Walton (American) – $34.7 billion.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2204173-worlds-richest-people-gained-237-billion-in-2016-says-report/

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

%d bloggers like this: