Love Truth

By: Bradley Loves

This is going to be HARD for most people to hear!   Not just hard…, but really hard.  However, no more beating around the bush!  It has to be said!

Never in the history of the Universe has there been a “device” that is more evil…, or more Satanic, than than the device called:  The Contract

Yes…, that’s right…, I said “DEVICE”.

It is a tool…, it is a “construction”…, and certainly not a part of COSMIC or NATURAL LAW!

Used in all business dealings,  and purported to be the “basis” upon which “agreements” are finalized…., it is ANYTHING BUT WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE.

The contract is a BINDING!

It is based in ANCIENT ESOTERIC MAGIC…, and nothing more.

Hear me…, all people who have ears to hear…, please read this and please LEARN.


The ONLY reason to have a “contract”…

View original post 2,146 more words

The world wide cage


Technology promised to set us free. Instead it has trained us to withdraw from the world into distraction and dependency


It was a scene out of an Ambien nightmare: a jackal with the face of Mark Zuckerberg stood over a freshly killed zebra, gnawing at the animal’s innards. But I was not asleep. The vision arrived midday, triggered by the Facebook founder’s announcement – in spring 2011 – that ‘The only meat I’m eating is from animals I’ve killed myself.’ Zuckerberg had begun his new ‘personal challenge’, he told Fortune magazine, by boiling a lobster alive. Then he dispatched a chicken. Continuing up the food chain, he offed a pig and slit a goat’s throat. On a hunting expedition, he reportedly put a bullet in a bison. He was ‘learning a lot’, he said, ‘about sustainable living’.

I managed to delete the image of the jackal-man from my memory. What I couldn’t shake was a sense that in the young entrepreneur’s latest pastime lay a metaphor awaiting explication. If only I could bring it into focus, piece its parts together, I might gain what I had long sought: a deeper understanding of the strange times in which we live.

What did the predacious Zuckerberg represent? What meaning might the lobster’s reddened claw hold? And what of that bison, surely the most symbolically resonant of American fauna? I was on to something. At the least, I figured, I’d be able to squeeze a decent blog post out of the story.

The post never got written, but many others did. I’d taken up blogging early in 2005, just as it seemed everyone was talking about ‘the blogosphere’. I’d discovered, after a little digging on the domain registrar GoDaddy, that ‘’ was still available (an uncharacteristic oversight by pornographers), so I called my blog Rough Type. The name seemed to fit the provisional, serve-it-raw quality of online writing at the time.

Blogging has since been subsumed into journalism – it’s lost its personality – but back then it did feel like something new in the world, a literary frontier. The collectivist claptrap about ‘conversational media’ and ‘hive minds’ that came to surround the blogosphere missed the point. Blogs were crankily personal productions. They were diaries written in public, running commentaries on whatever the writer happened to be reading or watching or thinking about at the moment. As Andrew Sullivan, one of the form’s pioneers, put it: ‘You just say what the hell you want.’ The style suited the jitteriness of the web, that needy, oceanic churning. A blog was critical impressionism, or impressionistic criticism, and it had the immediacy of an argument in a bar. You hit the Publish button, and your post was out there on the world wide web, for everyone to see.

Or to ignore. Rough Type’s early readership was trifling, which, in retrospect, was a blessing. I started blogging without knowing what the hell I wanted to say. I was a mumbler in a loud bazaar. Then, in the summer of 2005, Web 2.0 arrived. The commercial internet, comatose since the dot-com crash of 2000, was up on its feet, wide-eyed and hungry. Sites such as MySpace, Flickr, LinkedIn and the recently launched Facebook were pulling money back into Silicon Valley. Nerds were getting rich again. But the fledgling social networks, together with the rapidly inflating blogosphere and the endlessly discussed Wikipedia, seemed to herald something bigger than another gold rush. They were, if you could trust the hype, the vanguard of a democratic revolution in media and communication – a revolution that would change society forever. A new age was dawning, with a sunrise worthy of the Hudson River School.

Rough Type had its subject.

The greatest of the United States’ homegrown religions – greater than Jehovah’s Witnesses, greater than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, greater even than Scientology – is the religion of technology. John Adolphus Etzler, a Pittsburgher, sounded the trumpet in his testament The Paradise Within the Reach of All Men (1833). By fulfilling its ‘mechanical purposes’, he wrote, the US would turn itself into a new Eden, a ‘state of superabundance’ where ‘there will be a continual feast, parties of pleasures, novelties, delights and instructive occupations’, not to mention ‘vegetables of infinite variety and appearance’.

Similar predictions proliferated throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and in their visions of ‘technological majesty’, as the critic and historian Perry Miller wrote, we find the true American sublime. We might blow kisses to agrarians such as Jefferson and tree-huggers such as Thoreau, but we put our faith in Edison and Ford, Gates and Zuckerberg. It is the technologists who shall lead us.

Cyberspace, with its disembodied voices and ethereal avatars, seemed mystical from the start, its unearthly vastness a receptacle for the spiritual yearnings and tropes of the US. ‘What better way,’ wrote the philosopher Michael Heim in ‘The Erotic Ontology of Cyberspace’ (1991), ‘to emulate God’s knowledge than to generate a virtual world constituted by bits of information?’ In 1999, the year Google moved from a Menlo Park garage to a Palo Alto office, the Yale computer scientist David Gelernter wrote a manifesto predicting ‘the second coming of the computer’, replete with gauzy images of ‘cyberbodies drift[ing] in the computational cosmos’ and ‘beautifully laid-out collections of information, like immaculate giant gardens’.

The revelation continues to this day, the technological paradise forever glittering on the horizon

The millenarian rhetoric swelled with the arrival of Web 2.0. ‘Behold,’ proclaimed Wired in an August 2005 cover story: we are entering a ‘new world’, powered not by God’s grace but by the web’s ‘electricity of participation’. It would be a paradise of our own making, ‘manufactured by users’. History’s databases would be erased, humankind rebooted. ‘You and I are alive at this moment.’

The revelation continues to this day, the technological paradise forever glittering on the horizon. Even money men have taken sidelines in starry-eyed futurism. In 2014, the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen sent out a rhapsodic series of tweets – he called it a ‘tweetstorm’ – announcing that computers and robots were about to liberate us all from ‘physical need constraints’. Echoing Etzler (and Karl Marx), he declared that ‘for the first time in history’ humankind would be able to express its full and true nature: ‘we will be whoever we want to be.’ And: ‘The main fields of human endeavour will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, adventure.’ The only thing he left out was the vegetables.

Such prophesies might be dismissed as the prattle of overindulged rich guys, but for one thing: they’ve shaped public opinion. By spreading a utopian view of technology, a view that defines progress as essentially technological, they’ve encouraged people to switch off their critical faculties and give Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and financiers free rein in remaking culture to fit their commercial interests. If, after all, the technologists are creating a world of superabundance, a world without work or want, their interests must be indistinguishable from society’s. To stand in their way, or even to question their motives and tactics, would be self-defeating. It would serve only to delay the wonderful inevitable.

The Silicon Valley line has been given an academic imprimatur by theorists from universities and think tanks. Intellectuals spanning the political spectrum, from Randian right to Marxian left, have portrayed the computer network as a technology of emancipation. The virtual world, they argue, provides an escape from repressive social, corporate and governmental constraints; it frees people to exercise their volition and creativity unfettered, whether as entrepreneurs seeking riches in the marketplace or as volunteers engaged in ‘social production’ outside the marketplace. As the Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler wrote in his influential book The Wealth of Networks (2006):

This new freedom holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and, in an increasingly information-dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere.

Calling it a revolution, he said, is no exaggeration.

Benkler and his cohort had good intentions, but their assumptions were bad. They put too much stock in the early history of the web, when the system’s commercial and social structures were inchoate, its users a skewed sample of the population. They failed to appreciate how the network would funnel the energies of the people into a centrally administered, tightly monitored information system organised to enrich a small group of businesses and their owners.

The territory began to be subdivided, strip-malled and I sensed that foreign agents were slipping into my computer through its connection to the web

The network would indeed generate a lot of wealth, but it would be wealth of the Adam Smith sort – and it would be concentrated in a few hands, not widely spread. The culture that emerged on the network, and that now extends deep into our lives and psyches, is characterised by frenetic production and consumption – smartphones have made media machines of us all – but little real empowerment and even less reflectiveness. It’s a culture of distraction and dependency. That’s not to deny the benefits of having easy access to an efficient, universal system of information exchange. It is to deny the mythology that shrouds the system. And it is to deny the assumption that the system, in order to provide its benefits, had to take its present form.

Late in his life, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term ‘innocent fraud’. He used it to describe a lie or a half-truth that, because it suits the needs or views of those in power, is presented as fact. After much repetition, the fiction becomes common wisdom. ‘It is innocent because most who employ it are without conscious guilt,’ Galbraith wrote in 1999. ‘It is fraud because it is quietly in the service of special interest.’ The idea of the computer network as an engine of liberation is an innocent fraud.

I love a good gizmo. When, as a teenager, I sat down at a computer for the first time – a bulging, monochromatic terminal connected to a two-ton mainframe processor – I was wonderstruck. As soon as affordable PCs came along, I surrounded myself with beige boxes, floppy disks and what used to be called ‘peripherals’. A computer, I found, was a tool of many uses but also a puzzle of many mysteries. The more time you spent figuring out how it worked, learning its language and logic, probing its limits, the more possibilities it opened. Like the best of tools, it invited and rewarded curiosity. And it was fun, head crashes and fatal errors notwithstanding.

In the early 1990s, I launched a browser for the first time and watched the gates of the web open. I was enthralled – so much territory, so few rules. But it didn’t take long for the carpetbaggers to arrive. The territory began to be subdivided, strip-malled and, as the monetary value of its data banks grew, strip-mined. My excitement remained, but it was tempered by wariness. I sensed that foreign agents were slipping into my computer through its connection to the web. What had been a tool under my own control was morphing into a medium under the control of others. The computer screen was becoming, as all mass media tend to become, an environment, a surrounding, an enclosure, at worst a cage. It seemed clear that those who controlled the omnipresent screen would, if given their way, control culture as well.

‘Computing is not about computers any more,’ wrote Nicholas Negroponte of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in his bestseller Being Digital (1995). ‘It is about living.’ By the turn of the century, Silicon Valley was selling more than gadgets and software: it was selling an ideology. The creed was set in the tradition of US techno-utopianism, but with a digital twist. The Valley-ites were fierce materialists – what couldn’t be measured had no meaning – yet they loathed materiality. In their view, the problems of the world, from inefficiency and inequality to morbidity and mortality, emanated from the world’s physicality, from its embodiment in torpid, inflexible, decaying stuff. The panacea was virtuality – the reinvention and redemption of society in computer code. They would build us a new Eden not from atoms but from bits. All that is solid would melt into their network. We were expected to be grateful and, for the most part, we were.

What Silicon Valley sells and we buy is not transcendence but withdrawal. We flock to the virtual because the real demands too much of us

Our craving for regeneration through virtuality is the latest expression of what Susan Sontag in On Photography (1977) described as ‘the American impatience with reality, the taste for activities whose instrumentality is a machine’. What we’ve always found hard to abide is that the world follows a script we didn’t write. We look to technology not only to manipulate nature but to possess it, to package it as a product that can be consumed by pressing a light switch or a gas pedal or a shutter button. We yearn to reprogram existence, and with the computer we have the best means yet. We would like to see this project as heroic, as a rebellion against the tyranny of an alien power. But it’s not that at all. It’s a project born of anxiety. Behind it lies a dread that the messy, atomic world will rebel against us. What Silicon Valley sells and we buy is not transcendence but withdrawal. The screen provides a refuge, a mediated world that is more predictable, more tractable, and above all safer than the recalcitrant world of things. We flock to the virtual because the real demands too much of us.

‘You and I are alive at this moment.’ That Wired story – under headline ‘We Are the Web’ – nagged at me as the excitement over the rebirth of the internet intensified through the fall of 2005. The article was an irritant but also an inspiration. During the first weekend of October, I sat at my Power Mac G5 and hacked out a response. On Monday morning, I posted the result on Rough Type – a short essay under the portentous title ‘The Amorality of Web 2.0’. To my surprise (and, I admit, delight), bloggers swarmed around the piece like phagocytes. Within days, it had been viewed by thousands and had sprouted a tail of comments.

So began my argument with – what should I call it? There are so many choices: the digital age, the information age, the internet age, the computer age, the connected age, the Google age, the emoji age, the cloud age, the smartphone age, the data age, the Facebook age, the robot age, the posthuman age. The more names we pin on it, the more vaporous it seems. If nothing else, it is an age geared to the talents of the brand manager. I’ll just call it Now.

It was through my argument with Now, an argument that has now careered through more than a thousand blog posts, that I arrived at my own revelation, if only a modest, terrestrial one. What I want from technology is not a new world. What I want from technology are tools for exploring and enjoying the world that is – the world that comes to us thick with ‘things counter, original, spare, strange’, as Gerard Manley Hopkins once described it. We might all live in Silicon Valley now, but we can still act and think as exiles. We can still aspire to be what Seamus Heaney, in his poem ‘Exposure’, called inner émigrés.

A dead bison. A billionaire with a gun. I guess the symbolism was pretty obvious all along.

Reprinted from ‘Utopia Is Creepy: And Other Provocations’ by Nicholas Carr. Copyright © 2016 by Nicholas Carr. With permission of the publisher, W W Norton & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.


Rights Don’t Come from Governments




With every new mass shooting, it seems that everyone on social media is some combination of a gun expert, Islam expert, terror expert, security expert, etc. That’s all well and good, and I am all for people having conversations about these kinds of things. I’m admittedly no expert in any of these areas, and I’m not writing this to try to present any answers or solutions. But this topic, and others like gay marriage, seem to always show that many people profoundly misunderstand what rights are.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have no role in terms of “creating” rights.

Rights and Law Aren’t Synonymous

You can see how far off people really are when you run across arguments along these lines: “The First Amendment and free speech aren’t absolute and can be limited, so the Second Amendment can be too”. There are several things grossly wrong with this argument: the first being that it gives way too much significance and power to the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have no role in “creating” rights. The Constitution itself is useful only insofar as it lays out the guidelines, structure, and organization of the government. It has no place dealing with anything else.

Rights are extremely simple and bills of rights, constitutions, civics classes, etc. only serve to muddy the waters. They lead people into the confused belief that individuals or representatives or majorities can create rights by writing them down on a magical piece of paper.

What Rights Do You Have?

The concept is simple. You have one and only one right, namely property. And you have that right by virtue of being a conscious being. We divide that up into such “sub-freedoms” as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, etc. just for the sake of ease of conversation when talking about specific types of property rights. But make no mistake, every legitimate right can be reduced to a right to property, while every illegitimate right cannot.

You own yourself and your rights only end where the rights of others begin. 

And as a conscious being , you are entitled to this natural right even if you are able to conceptualize it. Put differently, if you can think about having rights then you have them: regardless of whether they are written in a 200 year old document or not.

The second thing wrong with the above statement is that it’s completely false! Freedom of speech cannot be morally limited. You own yourself, and your rights only end where the rights of others begin; i.e. you can conduct yourself in any way you see fit so long as you do not violate the property rights of other conscious beings. The classic example typically given is that of someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It is said that this speech can be rightfully prohibited, and so there are “obvious” limits to the right to free speech.

Though you may not rightfully yell “fire” in a crowded theater (most of the time), the reason for this has nothing to do with a limit on free speech. The reason you may not do this is that you would be violating the property rights of both the owner of the theater and the patrons. Most theaters have a code of conduct and yelling “fire” is almost certainly violating that code. Since you would be currently occupying the someone else’s property, you must follow all their conditions for using that property, or you must leave. Otherwise, you are violating their rights.

You would also be depriving the patrons of getting what they paid for. They purchased a ticket in exchange for viewing the film or performance being shown in the theater and so have a de facto form of temporary property claim on a seat or spot in the theater for the duration of the show. By yelling “fire” and presumably ending or delaying the show or performance, you are depriving them of their property and violating their rights.

Contractual Restrictions of Rights

It’s extremely important to remember that right(s) only exist in the space that does not encroach on the rights of others. This means that the above situation does not constitute a “limit” on freedom of speech, but rather is a realm in which free speech never existed and can’t exist. Rights can never serve to aid in the violation of another’s rights because true rights never conflict. This is easier to conceptualize when you consider all rights as only a right to property. You can say what you want because you own your body, but if you choose to occupy someone else’s property, you must abide by their rules or leave.

Now let’s bring it back to the original statement and the conflict surrounding the right to bear arms. You can bear arms, not because of a few lines of text in an antiquated document, but because you have a right to purchase anything so long all the people involved in the transaction are doing so voluntarily and knowingly. In other words, you can ethically buy anything you want (drugs, guns, sex) as long as the rights of others aren’t violated in the process. What individuals do with what they buy is a wholly different and unrelated argument.

Freedom of speech is absolute. The right to bear arms (any arms) is absolute. Neither one of these facts has anything to do with the Constitution, and neither can be morally limited.


Five Lame Excuses for Passing Laws

Apparently the 10 commandments were insufficient (to control the people)

“In the beginnings of the structure of society they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.” – Protocol #1 [Protocols of The Meetings of The Learned Elders of Zion]



Opinions: everybody’s got one. All too often, people decide to make those opinions mandatory through legislation. Examples range from conservative opposition to marijuana and gay marriage, to leftist opposition to gun ownership and big gulp sodas.

Everybody wants to ban something. It’s human nature that if given power, people will want to use it. And in the state apparatus, that usually means calls for regulation and/or prohibition. So before you go out and vote for the latest piece of legislation, here are five really stupid excuses people use to justify criminalization.

1. Protect the Children

Yeah, how original. Ban smoking (to protect the children), ban guns (to protect the children), ban pornography (to protect the children), ban video games (to protect the children).

To those of you who use this excuse because you happen to be overprotective guardians who can’t bear the idea of a free society in which every aspect of life isn’t child friendly: could you kindly stop forcing your incessant worrying onto the rest of us? Individuals smoking weed aren’t gonna make little Jimmy become a drug dealer and individuals watching porn aren’t gonna make little Sally become a prostitute. Well, maybe… So, just invest in some parental control software!

And to those of you who are just using children as a tool of emotional exploitation so you can convince a majority to pass a law mandating your beliefs onto others, you’re not a good person.

2. Slippery Slope

Everyone’s favorite fallacy.

• Gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality!

• Violent video games are a slippery slope to murder!

• Marijuana is a slippery slope to flakka!

Guess what? Not every action is a first step to a later inevitable consequence that’s ten times worse than the original. Furthermore, if you’re so good at predicting the future, tell me, what about stupid people asking stupid politicians to pass stupid laws to prevent a stupid paranoid future scenario? What would that slippery slope lead to?

3. It’s for Our Safety!

Honestly, if you hear this come from somebody’s mouth, you’re probably listening to a politician or a mobster. Now, we all want laws that offer protection against acts of aggression such as murder, assault, theft, property damage, etc. But damn, people take it too far.

“Why are you spying on my emails, text messages, and phone calls?” To protect you from terrorists.

“Why are you groping my genitalia and confiscating my cocoa butter before I get on a plane?” To protect you from bombs.

“Why are you arming the local police with LAV’s, surveillance drones, and selective fire rifles?” To protect you from criminals.

“Why are you preventing me from drinking raw milk, sharing my car or my house with somebody for money, or opening up an unregulated lemonade stand in front of my house?” To protect you from… uh… freedom?

Yes, these laws are made to control us and take our freedom. These laws often don’t make us any more safe. In fact, in most cases they add unnecessary threats of danger to our lives since every law is backed by an enforcement gun, which will shoot you down if you dare disobey.

The only thing prohibitions do is make these activities more dangerous and vulnerable to criminal influence.

4. Prevent Bad Choices

Apparently some people believe a huge portion of the population is just waiting to do something self-destructive or vaguely anti-social: drugs, incest, prostitution, masturbation, etc. They cling to this idea that if we decriminalize these activities, more and more people will suddenly feel the urge to partake of them: as if legalizing something is equivalent to the government promoting it.

Look, chances are, if someone wants to do something, they’re going to do it anyway. Regardless of whether there’s a law banning it or not. Conservatives understand this when it comes to obtaining guns, liberals understand this with regard to obtaining an abortion. But somehow, when the question is reversed, they are completely lost. The only thing prohibitions do is make these activities more dangerous and vulnerable to criminal influence.

If meth is legalized, I’m not gonna go smoke meth. Cigarettes are legal and I don’t smoke those. Weed is illegal and I still smoke that occasionally.

If drinking beers before 21 is banned, you think that’s gonna stop anyone from doing it?

If prostitution is legalized, it’s not gonna incentivise me to go become an escort. (Just kidding. $250 an hour. No kissing.)

Bottom line: laws that turn peaceful activities into victimless crimes don’t magically stop people from doing those activities. And legalizing them won’t magically make everyone start doing it. I’m gonna do what I wanna do regardless. Why? Because I’m an unapologetic freedom loving degenerate. And that’s ok.

5. It’s the Law!

This has got to be the worst of them all. People might know a law is terrible, they might agree that it infringes on individuals rights, they might even be a victim of the insane piece of legislation. But they accept it and the resulting bad effects because, “It’s the Law. We just have to deal with it.”

If you’re the type of person who sees a victim of government overreach, someone who has done nothing wrong or harmed anyone or anyone’s property in any way but got arrested simply for disobeying a B.S. law and thinks, “It’s you’re fault, you should’ve just obeyed the law, you deserve what you get,” I urge you to reevaluate your principles and decide whether they mean something to you or not.

Opinions are great in a free society. But in an authoritarian democratic state, opinions become laws; a cancer that grows to infect the lives of as many people as possible. So if we agree that opinions and force don’t mix, the logical conclusion is that one has to go.

I tend to like my free speech and that of others, so opinions aren’t something I’d like to get rid of. But this whole system that allows for those opinions to be forced onto me? Maybe we could do without that. Just a thought.

T.J. Brown


Government Preparing for Worldwide Civil Unrest – Why?

Lately the people of the world are being told to stock up food and water in preparation for some kind of a disaster. The German government is not only telling the Germans to stockpile but apparently to begin conscription once again.

Preppers in US have been prepping for the last few years till today. Way back in 2011 NASA told its staff and families to prepare for an emergency and put up a page on their website

The world as we know it is changing and the awaken are telling the sleepers. What kind of an emergency are they expecting and anticipating? Disclosure, economic collapse, death of the Dollar, alien invasion are some of the buzzwords. Collapse of governments and natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods due to climate change is the other. All in all civil unrest is the keyword as that will be the outcome from any of the above mentioned.

Armstrong Economics


A number of emails have come in asking if we are advising the government since they are now enlisting firms to research a rise in civil unrest. The answer is no! Nevertheless, everyone knows of the accuracy of our computer systems and our cycle of war models. It was the CIA that, after all, came to us demanding I create the system for them in Washington after the model predicted the fall of the Russian monetary system in 1998. I declined. I did offer to run any study for them on our systems. I was told that was not acceptable for they had to “own it.” I said no way. I believe their position was they did not want anyone else to possess the forecasts. I have also been asked if I am afraid of government. I responded that the only way they will ever get access to what our system forecasts is to leave me alone and read our services. So, this is the Mexican standoff as they say. We agree to disagree.

True, the Pentagon is now funding universities to try to model the dynamics of the rise in war. Sure, they are trying to copy what we have achieved. They are the government after all. They know I cannot be threatened for I would rather be dead than held as some slave. They are attempting to model large-scale civil unrest, across the world no less. You can guess where they got that idea. Programmers have told me that the government has contracted programmers to try to program what we have accomplished with Socrates. Good luck. It takes more time than money can buy. No programmer could ever figure this out, especially if they do not understand HOW cycles function at the core. This is not some simpleton program.

20070410 Movie Pi

I have been told that slander and imitation are the ultimate level of flattery. When the model predicted the peak in the real estate bubble to the day in February 2007, they were calling it “Armstrong’s revenge.” They thought locking me up would somehow stop the model from working so they kept me in contempt of court, using a statute 28 USC §1826, which says the maximum time anyone can be held in civil contempt is 18 months. They kept rolling it every 18 months to pretend they were obeying the law. I was finally released after 7 years merely because I got into the Supreme Court and they had no choice but to release me or suffer an international disgrace.

Just after the model forecast the peak in 2007 to the day, once again, I was hauled into court and Judge Keenan who tried to discredit our model by claiming I stole the idea of pi from a movie by that name. This transcript above shows how they deliberately lie to try to cover-up anything. Accusing me of taking the idea from a movie named “Pi”, which did not come out until 1998, illustrates how fundamentally dishonest these people really are. They think they can just say anything and the world will believe them no matter what. They are incapable of telling the truth and that doesn’t bother them in the slightest.

Think of the worse kid in high school who enjoyed beating up people or stealing what they had. Look them up. More likely than not, they ended up in law enforcement. This transcript is the example of absolute corruption beyond belief. They could care less that you can simply Google when the movie came out. They declare something and to them that makes it true. This was all about trying to discredit a model that forecast the crash from 2007 into 2009. Rather than helping society, they seek only to destroy it.

The turning point 2007.1589 picked the very day of the high in the Shiller Real Estate Index and was published in 1979 — 20 years before the movie. However, it also marked the very day Goldman Sachs sold its infamous ABACUS 2007-AC1 $2 billion Synthetic CDO. They timed that perfectly to the very day of our model.

The court tried to discredit the model. That illustrated they were worried its forecast was coming true. You can bet they analyze our every word. These people have no morals and think they can just force society to be economic slaves forever. Nobody has ever beaten this game in history. Time is on my side, not theirs.


Manufactured Civil Unrest and Regime Change; Is America Next?


Merkel Prepares For a Deliberate Crisis While White House Plans For a Disastrous Succession

On the surface, Merkel is simply trying to prepare Germans for every eventuality. She is, you see, a caring leader who wants the best for her people.

In fact, Merkel is simply a handmaiden for a much larger group of elites who are continually plotting “chaos” in order to lay the groundwork for a continued evolution of global governance…read further





Hungry Venezuelans break into Caracas zoo and butcher a horse for food

Venezuelans starving and the rest of the world sit by as the bank$ter$ rip the country apart.

Wherever you are your country is next!


August 2016VENEZUELAVenezuelans suffering from hunger and shortages in their struggling country broke into Caracas zoo and pulled a black stallion from its pen, butchering it for the meat. The crime occurred late last month, in the small hours of the morning at Caracas’ Caricuao Zoo. A gang of people sneaked into the state-run park under the cover of darkness and seized the horse – the only one of its kind in the zoo. The animal was then led to a secluded area and butchered on the spot.
Zookeepers arriving for duty the next morning, on July 25, found only its head and ribs left behind in a pile. Dalila Puglia, an environmental prosecutor, has been commissioned by the government to investigate. But the horse was not the first zoo animal to suffer the effects of Venezuela’s crippling food shortages. Vietnamese pigs and sheep were reportedly stolen…

View original post 433 more words

Thousands of ships are being destroyed – and it’s terrifying news for the global economy

Lost Faith In Central Banks And The Economic End Game

Central banks have focused most of their efforts on levitating the Dow as well as energy markets for some time now.

Why? Because the general public does not pay attention to any other market indicators. They do not care that equipment giant Caterpillar is having the worst profit period in the company’s history. They do not care that the Baltic Dry Index, a measure of global shipping rates and thus a measure of global orders for raw goods, continues to bounce around well below its original historic lows due to crashing shipping demand. They do not care that according to the World Economic Forum, oil demand has dropped to levels not seen since 1997. They do not know nor do they care to know. Their only barometer for economic danger is the Dow, and central banks know this well.


Economic Slump Sends Big Ships to Scrap Heap

Cargo-vessel recycling surges amid overcapacity and tumbling freight rates – WSJ

Business Insider


REUTERS / Danish Siddiqui

The shipping industry is taking a beating.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, about 1,000 ships capable of hauling 52 million metric tons of cargo will be cut up and sold for scrap metal this year. Owners have only ordered 293 vessels this year through July — a stark decrease from 2010 to 2015 when owners were buying 1,450 ships annually.

The reason? A stagnant global economy that stems back to little growth in Europe and a slowdown in China. Chinese imports from the European Union fell 14% last year, the WSJ reports. In the first quarter of this year, Chinese imports from the EU fell 7% from a year prior. Exports to Europe have fallen as well.

All of that means there’s an overcapacity of ships, leaving owners no choice but to leave them idle or recycle them. Typically, ships are recycled every 30 years. But this year, the average of ships getting recycled is 15 years.

“If you go back five years ago, people saw growing demand at very high rates. There was a bit of an uptick in the number of ships that were brought on, particularly in 2012, 2013, and 2014,” Sean Monahan, a partner at the consulting firm A.T. Kearney, told Business Insider.

“But generally demand has flattened, and in some cases a little bit declined …. there are a lot more ships either being dry docked or being scrapped,” Monahan, who is an expert on shipping, said.

And owners aren’t getting the same bang for their buck when recycling ships, either. A sharp drop in the price of steel has dropped the rate of return an average of 10% to 15% of the price of a new ship, the WSJ reported.

Monahan said he sees this being an issue for the next two to three years before demand bounces back to the point where more ships can be in use.

The current picture of world trade and shipping may not be as good as what it was according to the latest Baltic Dry Index figures, but the map drawn out by UCL’s Energy Institute is awesome nevertheless. Baltic Dry Index … Continue reading

Japan’s Exports Sink at Its Fastest Rate Since the Financial Crisis

The country’s exports have now fallen for 10 consecutive months. Japan‘s exports tumbled in July at the fastest pace since the…continue reading