Ted Cruz Sings from the Rockefeller Hymn Book

During last night’s Republican presidential debate, Ted Cruz said: “Smoot-Hawley led to the Great Depression.” But if you look at the chart below, you will see that tariffs during the 1930s were not unusually high by historical standards:

Tariff Table

And I might add that tariffs were very high during the period between the Civil War and World War I when the USA grew into a superpower. And that was no accident. In fact, it was our plan. Tariffs were the centerpiece of the American School of Economics. This is historical fact. High-tariff America didn’t have 45 million people on food stamps like free-trading America does today.

Cruz also said: “…a tariff is a tax on you, the American people…” But that’s only half of the transaction. The tariff would bring some production back to the USA, people would get hired, start spending money again, and your business would have more revenue. Or, if you work for somebody else, their revenue would increase and you could ask for a raise.

Both of Cruz’s statements are straight out of the globalist book of talking points. I wouldn’t go out of my way to criticize him if he weren’t posing as an outsider. But the two quotes discussed here are 100% establishment.

It is painfully obvious that the “grand” experiment of free trade and mass-immigration conducted over the past 25 years has failed. These polices need to be reversed, and Ted Cruz is obviously not the man to do it.

A Glittering Jewel of Pure Evil

Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz wrote in the New York Times that we have grossly miss-managed globalization. While I agree with almost everything he wrote, I want to point out that there was no miss-management involved.

In fact, it was quite the opposite. The truth is that the global system was painstakingly constructed by legions of intelligent and competent corporate lawyers and lobbyists to the exact specifications laid down by the Great Architect, David Rockefeller.

The system was designed to monetize the middle class; to convert its wealth into trillions of corporate profits stashed away in the Cayman Islands, safely out of the reach of the IRS.

And it has done so rapidly, and with ruthless efficiency. It is a glittering jewel of pure evil revered by psychopathic oligarchs the world over.

Stiglitz also complains that:

“…the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked drafts to guess at the proposed provisions.”

Well of course! This has been the case for decades! Sure, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to negotiate trade treaties, but David Rockefeller drove a stake through that part of the Constitution long ago. Today, trade policy is made at a level above the Congress – the corporate level, and mere plebs like Stiglitz literally do not have a right to know what the corporate lawyers are doing in their meetings.

It is none of our business. The policy will be handed down to Congress for rubber-stamping, and that will be it, and we will like it or lump it.

If you want to reform globalization, it is critical that you realize what you are up against. It is not merely a matter of choosing the right economic- and trade policies. It is a matter of repossessing the legal power from the Deep State to make those policies at all.

Beijing’s Man at the Fed

Many people were startled when President Obama said that he favored Larry Summers to succeed Ben Bernanke a few weeks ago. Not only did Summers help to deregulate banking and cause the 2008 financial collapse, but he is also a totally incompetent financial manager having gambled away $1.8 billion when president of Harvard.

Common sense tells us that having a buffoon like Summers as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank would be a recipe for disaster. So what’s President Obama’s problem? Does he want a disaster?

Maybe he does.

Obama also mentioned his desire for a strong dollar as part of his rationale for favoring Summers. Since when does Obama care about the dollar? And why does he think that’s the Fed’s responsibility and not the Treasury Department’s? Consider this chart of the CYB yuan ETF (click to enlarge):

CYB Chart

This ETF is at its highest level since its inception five years ago. So, the yuan has appreciated against the dollar during Bernanke’s QE campaign – and I don’t think that’s an accident. Remember that Beijing and their multinational allies fought hard against QE. Republican flunky propagandists like Larry Kudlow campaigned so vociferously against QE that I feared Bernanke would be assassinated. But Bernanke stood tall, and fired his cannons at the yuan/dollar currency peg enforced by Beijing that has been draining the USA of jobs for years.

To learn more about the mechanics of this, read my book. Suffice it to say that the stronger the yuan is, the more it costs Apple to purchase iPhones from Foxconn, and the harder it is for Beijing to steal factories from the USA.

In recent years, the Fed has been the only patriotic institution in Washington fighting against Beijing’s death-grip on our economy. And now that must stop because it is cutting into the profitability of the Oligarchy’s sweatshops. So, they are trying to seize control of the Fed. Larry Summers might end QE to strengthen the dollar – even if it involves plunging us into another recession.

And there is precedent for this: in 1979, David Rockefeller toyed with the idea of taking the chairmanship of the Fed. But he decided against it because he didn’t want to suffer the bad publicity from the “tough measures” he would have to institute to combat the so-called “wage push inflation” of the time. So, he sent a hatchet man instead: Paul Volcker, who promptly raised interest rate to the moon and inflicted a brutal depression on the USA. Volcker kept squeezing until their was a mutiny at the Fed and Volcker was kicked out. It’s a great story, so again, read my book. And remember that when it comes to corporate profits, the Oligarchy will stop at nothing – not even putting a dufus in charge of one of the most important institutions on earth.

Would Jesus Work at Walmart?

Imagine that Jesus is living in Arkansas, working as a carpenter. He commands $50 per hour for his high-quality work, and life is good. But then, the big home-building companies bribe enough Congressmen to drastically increase the number of work visas, and a wave of Mexican carpenters flood into the state.

The Mexicans are good carpenters, but they are willing to work for minimum wage because they have starving children back home. Jesus could compete on price, but he has a mortgage payment and three kids in college. No matter how hard or how long he works, he is doomed financially. Would Jesus turn the other cheek, and meekly put in an application at the local Walmart?

Well, if he did, Jesus would fit right in because many Walmart stores are practically evangelical churches already, complete with feet-washing rituals.

Edward Gibbon, author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire thought that the adoption of Christianity weakened the Roman Empire. (See the relevant passage here.) Other scholars dispute Gibbon’s assertion. However, when you look at the masses of believers toiling away for less-than-subsistence wages to further enrich the insanely wealthy Walton family, you have to wonder whether Gibbon was onto something.

This is why I say that we Americans are a conquered people – we have meekly and passively accepted our descent into servitude.

Many Walmart workers even love their servitude, fancying themselves to be Jesus-like. However, according Reza Aslan’s new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus was actually crucified for being a revolutionary. So, maybe Jesus wouldn’t knuckle under to the Walton family after all.

Read more abut the economic role of evangelical Christianity in To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise by Bethany Moreton. Here is a quote:

“For the emerging Wal-Mart constituency, faith in God and faith in the market grew in tandem, aided by…an organized, corporate-funded grassroots movement for Christian free enterprise. Ultimately, they helped shape American-led globalization itself.”

Indeed, using Christianity to control the masses goes all the way back to the founding of our nation. In George Washington: The Founding Father, historian Paul Johnson writes (page 10) about our first president:

“He was never indifferent to Christianity – quite the contrary: he saw it as an essential element of social control and good government – but his intellect and emotions inclined him more to…freemasonry…”

So, from the get-go, our leaders viewed Christianity as a means to control the masses. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Fascinating subject, no?

Detroit vs. Havana

On Friday, CNBC reporter Michelle Cuckoo-Cabeza reported from Cuba. Right after the report in the video below, Joe Kernen commented about how foolish Cuba was to not embrace globalization. I’m no defender of communism, and I’m sure that Cuba’s economy leaves a lot to be desired, but I can’t help but wonder how a city like Havana stacks up against that shining pillar of globalization: Detroit.

Do Havana residents have to carry rape whistles to fend off packs of wild dogs like they do in Detroit? Do tourists go to Havana to gawk at the ruins like they do Detroit? Are large chunks of Havana being systematically dismantled and returned to woodlands like Detroit?

And what about crime? Which city is more dangerous, Havana or Chicago, a.k.a. Chiraq? I would really like to see a well-researched comparison.

How is possible that Joe Kernen is oblivious to the wide swaths of America’s once-great industrial cities that have been devastated by globalization? Easy: that’s his job.