THE FALL OF GLOBAL GOVT: SPECIAL REPORT




The Fall of Globalization – It Didn’t Deliver

Globalization has failed and assertions to the contrary are hard to reconcile. Claims of widespread prosperity were wrong. It didn’t promote a more cooperative world. Nor did it solve the world’s most vexing problems – security, economic, social, or otherwise.

Foreign workers prepare products for U.S.

Rather, it contributed significantly to irrational exuberance, low productivity, enormous debt, and the worst financial crises and economic inequality in almost a century. It rewarded poor resource allocation, concentrations of wealth and power, and monopolistic behavior. It deterred innovation and capital investment by instead encouraging higher returns from shifts in existing wealth rather than creating new wealth. And ultimately, it led to the world’s highest divisiveness in decades.

As an economic system, globalization should have been brought to a stop long ago. But for lack of anticipated consequences, protected self-interest, and extraordinary debt and policy accommodation, it stretched far beyond its good. Now the snapback from its extreme is likely, and undoubtedly, should result in further global stress.

Costs of Globalization

Although many consumer items continue to be affordable, the cost of the overall globalized system is expensive. Following 9/11, the world became ever more aware of the “all-in” price of globalization. The burden of maintaining order fell mostly on the U.S. The costs of the Iraq and the Afghan wars, along with the global war on terror have been estimated at more than six trillion dollars. And that does not include the indirect drag on the economy and society, at large. Regardless of political bias, it is hard to dismiss the link between the Middle East’s turmoil over the last three decades and the region’s incursion related to oil and globalization.

Corporations are rethinking their global strategies. Protectionism, currency risks, counterfeiting, and systems security are forcing greater uncertainty on doing business abroad. Banks, industrials, consumer, and tech companies – all are feeling the blowback from globalization and share prices should begin to reflect that uncertainty.

Nationalism and trade wars are certainly developing, putting foreign assets and supply at risk. Some nations have moved to more localized alternatives, especially in energy and food production. From either foresight or sanctions, China, Russia, and Iran have been shoring up supply and production for quite some time. Meanwhile, the West stays entangled with political divisiveness. If the West is unprepared and its supply chain goes suddenly interrupted, it will indeed be very costly.

Lastly, many do not associate globalization with the world’s current environmental problems. But according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), globalization has accentuated major environmental damage. Some say those concerns are unfounded. Perhaps. But maybe the best way to decide is to look at the environments of the large global producing nations, such as China. Clearly, the potential direct and indirect costs of further environmental damage could be quite expensive.

Rationalization and Risk

Following World War II, global integration gradually expanded. Then, with the fall of the Soviet Union, a major upswing occurred, so that the sum of global imports and exports would rise to almost 60% of the world’s gross domestic product. According to the World Bank, the amount had doubled from the half-century before. Never before has low-cost foreign supply been so favored by policy, infrastructure advances, and energy abundance.

But the expansion of the global structure came with increased risks. In the idealistic world following Cold War victory, many of these risks were unknown, ignored or discounted. Former adversaries became vital suppliers. Mutually dependent financial systems and capital flows came to be relied upon. Integration was forced on cultures having opposing ideologies. Diversification and redundancy gave way to capacity and standardization.  Too, trade and defense treaties were required for those nations wanting to get in. It became a losing game to buck the trend of globalization.

And although history has shown that conflict is just as likely among trading partners, and globalization outcomes could not be reasonably anticipated, rationalizations were still made for the causes of harmony and efficiency. The world’s system became ripe for unintended consequences.

Rent-Seeking

Many economists agree that globalization allowed for a large increase in rent-seeking. This condition occurs when existing wealth is shifted, as opposed to new wealth created. The term “rent” does not specifically refer to the periodic payments on a lease, rather it is coined from a discussion of types of income – profit, wages, rent – in Adam Smith’s, Wealth of Nations. Rent-seeking extracts value from assets or processes that already exist, not from improving them. In extreme rent-seeking environments, growth occurs mostly through asset price inflation caused by expansion of the money supply (debt).

Robert J. Schiller, American Nobel Laureate and economist, gives a classic example of a feudal lord who develops a toll system on a river passing through his land. A toll is charged on passing commercial boats. The values of the river, the boats, or the passing goods have not been improved. But the investment in the toll system reaps a significant return.

Over the last few decades, production efficiency in many of the world’s underlying goods and services has seen only marginal increase (productivity). Meanwhile, the technological improvement and investment in today’s toll systems have been enormous. Production was forced toward low-cost producers and channeled through toll systems. Even with added cost of the tolls, prices have been more competitive compared to higher-cost producers without tolls.

Competition and Viability

As a result, many higher-cost producers were forced out of business. Sources of alternative supply were eliminated. The toll systems had naturally moved toward monopolistic behavior reaping enormous new business flows and wealth. However, much of it came through unfair labor practices, favorable policy, government subsidy, and excessive debt throughout the system.

But the tables may turn. These rent-seeking toll systems are at risk because they were built on the continued burden of others. This structure is fundamental to the struggle between populism (opposed to further accommodation), and globalization (needs accommodation). If the world moves away from globalization, then economic viability of the tolls becomes questionable without continued accommodation and from the potential for new competition that should follow.

Antitrust Possibility

Increasingly, economists are suggesting that globalization has created new variants of antitrust activity that have gone unchecked for several reasons. First, it is not widely understood as such. Second, the toll systems have influenced policy through their sway on politicians and regulators. Third, cross-border enforcement is a particularly sticky issue with geopolitical ramifications. And lastly, the masses have been convinced to look the other way through rationalizations of social benefit, peaceful coexistence, and economic efficiency. Going forward, it would not be surprising to see new policy-makers attempt to break rent-seeking tolls through antitrust enforcement.

A good example of the making of an anti-competitive toll system is the deregulation, consolidation, and subsequent “too-big-to-fail” bailouts of the FDIC-subsidized banks.  Some believe that the distribution and advertising businesses of certain “technology” giants fall into this category. Similarly, the retail chains of global discounters may encounter new scrutiny.

And finally, although it is not a globalized business and is not subject to antitrust enforcement because of legislative creation, the Affordable Care Act’s  health care system has significant, structurally-imposed rent-seeking. The point is that as long as rent-seeking behavior remains a formidable power in the economy, then competition, innovation, and productivity will stay subdued.

Continued Denial

Last week, global elites again gathered for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. Since the 1990s, the WEF has been a leading proponent of globalization. Its members include top banks, hedge funds, and global corporations. The 2017 forum opened with Chinese President Xi Jinping as speaker.

This year security was tight at the exclusive winter resort. Organizers worried over repercussions from populist backlash. And along those lines, Oxfam – a global, charitable-based NGO – prepared a report for Davos, “An Economy for the 99%.”  The report claims that world’s top eight wealthiest individuals now own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population. Undeniably, the wealth gap has widened significantly over the last decade and has been a leading issue with the populists . Oxfam’s report did gain some attention at the forum, but mostly from the media covering the event.

Participants at the WEF again determined the upcoming year’s watch list for the top five global risks – extreme weather, involuntary migration, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and data theft. Amazingly, the fallout from receding globalization did not rank. The disconnect of the world’s top business, financial, and political leaders’ to the issues causing the rise in populism – the biggest social movement in decades – seems surprising, but perhaps not. Many at last year’s forum proclaimed Brexit as impossible and the Trump presidential campaign was merely a preposterous stunt.

The Unwind

Globalization, as known over the last three decades, will recede – it has to. It is untenable and the results have been dismal – for the U.S., most western industrialized nations, and the Middle East. The world’s current operating system, evolved under globalization, is at risk, not only from populist and nationalist forces, but also stemming from its economic viability. Value cannot be created from a diminishing return – either by leverage or accommodation, both of which are finite. Inevitably, humans will move toward the innate process of advancing productivity and prosperity. Change from globalization is not a matter of if, but when.

But unplugging globalization will not be quiet. Changes in global markets, domestic order, and geopolitical relations will be turbulent, and potentially, in a very troubling manner. The world now finds itself within a very muddled mess of self-interest that crosses regional and national boundaries and pits members of the same society against each other. A similar situation was observed as the Industrial Revolution unwound in the mid-1800s. Revolt and conflict ensued across Europe, the Americas and parts of Asia.

A parallel outcome is hoped not to repeat. In facing the challenges that may lie ahead, America should also hope not to be guided by unrealistic optimism. Or be divided by disregard of its national heritage and shared interests. For that is the legacy which future generations will evaluate.

Christopher Petitt – financial executive, board advisor, and business consultant – is the author of the book, The Crucible of Global War: And the Sequence that is Leading Back to It. It is available

The Fall of Globalization – It Didn’t Deliver

Advertisements

At “World Government Summit,” Top Globalists Drop The Mask

These Globalists are going to cause a bad Civil War in America and they are going to lose! We are not going to allow our Leader or country to be taken down!

Reclaim Our Republic

Feb 17, 2017 by  Alex Newman

At “World Government Summit,” Top Globalists Drop The Mask

Meeting this week at the annual “World Government Summit” in the United Arab Emirates, under the shadow of a replica monument from the false god Baal’s temple, top globalists and establishment leaders from around the planet offered a series of stunning revelations about their agenda. From the socialist new UN secretary-general and the embattled boss of the International Monetary Fund to national government leaders and tax-funded crony capitalists, over a hundred prominent speakers lectured thousands of attendees on the supposed necessity of globalism, multiculturalism, statism, Big Government, social engineering, “sustainability,” and more. One speaker, tax-funded billionaire Elon Musk, even claimed humans must merge with machines and governments must give everyone an income.

Despite the array of high-profile speakers, the controversial gathering itself, organized by the Islamic rulers of the UAE and their partners, received very little attention from…

View original post 1,773 more words

African Nations Furious over Possible Collapse of Climate Change Agreement

“I personally dont believe in Climate Change and feel its just the Elitists cause to control the world.”

 

This morning’s key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

The surprise election victory of Donald Trump, who has called climate change “a hoax,” has been an extremely unpleasant shock to African leaders attending a climate change conference in Marrakesh, Morocco. Prior to the election, they had hoped that the international climate change agreement would be a financial bonanza, and they are angry now that they see all that money slipping away, and are concerned that the entire climate change effort may be near collapse.

A statement by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Marrakech conference on Wednesday urged a rapid scale-up in funding for climate change programs, especially to support developing countries. “Finance and investment hold the key to achieving low-emissions and resilient societies,” he said.

Many leaders are urging that implementation of the climate change agreement be sped up so that as much as possible can be done while president Barack Obama is still in office.

World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, said that he’s trying to mobilize as much as financing as possible.”

It is not just about trying to persuade donors and financiers to put up more money, although we are definitely trying to do that, but it also about creating the environment that crowds in a lot more financing. Even if we have the 100 billion dollars we are talking about, it is not nearly enough to reach our goals…

We are trying to find ways to improve the way the existing banking sector understands and considers the risks of climate smart investments.

Kenya’s president Uhuru Kenyatta said that the developed countries have an obligation to provide plenty of money to developing countries like Kenya:

We should aim to ensure achievement of the long-term global goal of stabilizing the global temperature increase to below 1.5 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial levels, which gives hope to the most vulnerable countries and communities…

The process should also take into consideration the obligations of developed country Parties to provide additional, predictable and sustainable support in terms of finance, technology and capacity building to meet the adaptation and mitigation needs of the developing country Parties.

One thing that we have learned over the years is that giving free money to African countries is mostly a disaster. After decades of giving huge amounts of aid to African countries, the people are just as poor and the infrastructure is little changes. Money given to an African leader is used to buy weapons, or to build a new glittering presidential palace, or to be deposited in a foreign bank account. United Nations and Capital FM (Nairobi) and The Hindu

The ‘science’ of climate change

As I’ve written in the past:

  • Humans may well have caused and be causing climate change, but climate change scientists have been making predictions for 20 years, and have been consistently wrong.
  • Climate change will take care of itself. It is already happening, as cities like Beijing and New Delhi are choked with smog and force the governments to adopt clean air policies. Renewable energy prices are falling without any international climate agreement.
  • The proposed climate change agreement contains no plan, no roadmap, nothing that shows how to accomplish the stated goals, because no such plan or roadmap exists or could exist.
  • Predictions by climate change scientists are always wrong because it’s impossible to predict future mitigating technologies, such as nanotechnologies and the Singularity, and because they assume that there will never be another world war.

I’m not aware of any evidence to support the belief that any money spent on the basis of an international climate change agreement would not be completely wasted. BBC

Source: African Nations Furious over Possible Collapse of Climate Change Agreement

Bannon as Co-Equal of Priebus – Critics ‘Bitter’ After Losing Election – Beat Clintons, Obamas, And Bushes

Reclaim Our Republic

 Trump Names Steve Bannon as Co-Equal of Priebus

Nov 15, 2016  by  Bob Adelmann

Trump Names Steve Bannon as Co-Equal of Priebus

Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday that he was naming Reince Priebus as his chief of staff and Steve Bannon (shown) as his chief political advisor generated outrage from the Left and the Right. While the Right accused Trump of selling out his principles by installing longtime Republican stalwart Reince Priebus as his personal gatekeeper, most of the Left’s outrage was focused on Bannon, who has made it his life’s mission to oppose and expose the establishment’s control of the media and the political process in general.

Those who know him, however, have a vastly different and more favorable view of the man.

Running Breitbart News ever since its founder, Andrew Breitbart, died in 2012, Bannon has tapped into, and augmented, an increasing number of citizens’ distaste of and outrage against the establishment. More than 40 million…

View original post 1,775 more words

Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power’ – POLITICO

George Soros and other rich liberals who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to elect Hillary Clinton are gathering in Washington for a three-day, closed door meeting to retool the big-money left to fight back against Donald Trump.

The conference, which kicked off Sunday night at Washington’s pricey Mandarin Oriental hotel, is sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance donor club, and will include appearances by leaders of most leading unions and liberal groups, as well as darlings of the left such as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison, according to an agenda and other documents obtained by POLITICO.

The meeting is the first major gathering of the institutional left since Trump’s shocking victory over Hillary Clinton in last week’s presidential election, and, if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One. Some sessions deal with gearing up for 2017 and 2018 elections, while others focus on thwarting President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan, which the agenda calls “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”

Yet the meeting also comes as many liberals are reassessing their approach to politics — and the role of the Democracy Alliance, or DA, as the club is known in Democratic finance circles. The DA, its donors and beneficiary groups over the last decade have had a major hand in shaping the institutions of the left, including by orienting some of its key organizations around Clinton, and by basing their strategy around the idea that minorities and women constituted a so-called “rising American electorate” that could tip elections to Democrats.

That didn’t happen in the presidential election, where Trump won largely on the strength of his support from working-class whites. Additionally, exit polls suggested that issues like fighting climate change and the role of money in politics — which the DA’s beneficiary groups have used to try to turn out voters — didn’t resonate as much with the voters who carried Trump to victory.

“The DA itself should be called into question,” said one Democratic strategist who has been active in the group and is attending the meeting. “You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.”

Another liberal operative who has been active in the DA since its founding rejected the notion that the group — or the left, more generally — needed to completely retool its approach to politics.

“We should not learn the wrong lesson from this election,” said the operative, pointing out that Clinton is on track to win the popular vote and that Trump got fewer votes than the last GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. “We need our people to vote in greater numbers. For that to happen, we need candidates who inspire them to go to the polls on Election Day.”

But Gara LaMarche, the president of the DA, on Sunday evening told donors gathered at the Mandarin for a welcome dinner that some reassessment was in order. According to prepared remarks he provided to POLITICO, he said, “You don’t lose an election you were supposed to win, with so much at stake, without making some big mistakes, in assumptions, strategy and tactics.”

LaMarche added that the reassessment “must take place without recrimination and finger-pointing, whatever frustration and anger some of us feel about our own allies in these efforts,” and he said “It is a process we should not rush, even as we gear up to resist the Trump administration.”

LaMarche emailed the donors last week that the meeting would begin the process of assessing “what steps we will take together to resist the assaults that are coming and take back power, beginning in the states in 2017 and 2018.”

In addition to sessions focusing on protecting Obamacare and other pillars of Obama’s legacy against dismantling by President-elect Trump, the agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and the left’s approach to winning the working-class vote, as well as sessions stressing the importance of channeling cash to state legislative policy battles and races, where Republicans won big victories last week.

Democrats need to invest more in training officials and developing policies in the states, argued Rep. Ellison (D-Minn.) on a Friday afternoon donor conference call, according to someone on the call. The call was organized by a DA-endorsed group called the State Innovation Exchange (or SiX), which Ellison urged the donors to support.

Ellison, who is scheduled to speak on a Monday afternoon panel at the DA meeting on the challenge Democrats face in winning working-class votes, has been a leading liberal voice for a form of economic populism that Trump at times channeled more than Clinton.

As liberals look to rebuild the post-Clinton Democratic Party on a more aggressively liberal bearing, Ellison has emerged as a top candidate to take over the Democratic National Committee, and he figures to be in high demand at the DA meeting. An Ellison spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday evening. Nor did a Trump spokesman.

Raj Goyle, a New York Democratic activist who previously served in the Kansas state legislature and now sits on SiX’s board, argued that many liberal activists and donors are “disconnected from working class voters’ concerns” because they’re cluster in coastal cities. “And that hurt us this election,” said Goyle, who is involved in the DA, and said its donors would do well to steer more cash to groups on the ground in landlocked states. “Progressive donors and organizations need to immediately correct the lack of investment in state and local strategies.”

The Democracy Alliance was launched after the 2004 election by Soros, the late insurance mogul Peter Lewis, and a handful of fellow Democratic mega-donors who had combined to spend tens of millions trying to boost then-Sen. John Kerry’s ultimately unsuccessful challenge to then-President George W. Bush.

The donors’ goal was to seed a set of advocacy groups and think tanks outside the Democratic Party that could push the party and its politicians to the left while also defending them against attack from the right.

The group requires its members — a group that now numbers more than 100 and includes finance titans like Soros, Tom Steyer and Donald Sussman, as well as major labor unions and liberal foundations — to contribute a total of at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups. Members also pay annual dues of $30,000 to fund the DA staff and its meetings, which include catered meals and entertainment (on Sunday, interested donors were treated to a VIP tour of the recently opened National Museum of African American History and Culture).

Since its inception in 2005, the DA has steered upward of $500 million to a range of groups, including pillars of the political left such as the watchdog group Media Matters, the policy advocacy outfit Center for American Progress and the data firm Catalist — all of which are run by Clinton allies who are expected to send representatives to the DA meeting.

The degree to which those groups will be able to adapt to the post-Clinton Democratic Party is not entirely clear, though some of the key DA donors have given generously to them for years.

That includes Soros, who, after stepping back a bit from campaign-related giving in recent years, had committed or donated $25 million to boosting Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016. During the presidential primaries, Soros had argued that Trump and his GOP rival Ted Cruz were “doing the work of ISIS.”

A Soros spokesman declined to comment for this story.

But, given that the billionaire financier only periodically attends DA meetings and is seldom a part of the formal proceedings, his scheduled Tuesday morning appearance as a speaker suggests that he’s committed to investing in opposing President Trump.

The agenda item for a Tuesday morning “conversation with George Soros” invokes Soros’ personal experience living through the Holocaust and Soviet Communism in the context of preparing for a Trump presidency. The agenda notes that the billionaire currency trader, who grew up in Hungary, “has lived through Nazism and Communism, and has devoted his foundations to protecting the kinds of open societies around the world that are now threatened in the United States itself.”

LaMarche, who for years worked for Soros’s Open Society foundations, told POLITICO that the references to Nazism and Communism are “part of his standard bio.”

LaMarche, who is set to moderate the discussion with Soros, said the donor “does not plan to compare whatever we face under Trump to Nazism, I can tell you that.” LaMarche he also said, “I don’t think there is anyone who has looked at Trump, including many respected conservatives, who doesn’t think the experience of authoritarian states would not be important to learn from here. And to the extent that Soros and his foundations have experience with xenophobia in Europe, Brexit, etc., we want to learn from that as well.”

The Soros conversation was added to the agenda after Election Day. It was just one of many changes made on the fly to adjust for last week’s jarring result and the stark new reality facing liberals, who went from discussing ways to push an incoming President Clinton leftward, to instead discussing how to play defense.

A pre-election working draft of the DA’s agenda, obtained by POLITICO, featured a session on Clinton’s first 100 days and another on “moving a progressive national policy agenda in 2017.” Those sessions were rebranded so that the first instead will examine “what happened” on the “cataclysm of Election Day,” while the second will focus on “combating the massive threats from Trump and Congress in 2017.”

A session that before the election had been titled “Can Our Elections Be Hacked,” after the election was renamed “Was the 2016 Election Hacked” — a theory that has percolated without evidence on the left to explain the surprising result.

In his post-election emails to donors and operatives, LaMarche acknowledged the group had to “scrap many of the original plans for the conference,” explaining “while we made no explicit assumptions about the outcome, the conference we planned, and the agenda you have seen, made more sense in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory.”

Source: Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power’ – POLITICO

The Clintons and Soros Launch America’s Purple Revolution

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel inmidtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required» to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.

Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

«Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia’s very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited ‘containment’ policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton’s administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton».

President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump’s policies but seek to continue to damage America’s relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama’s lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and «Black Lives Matter», broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

The Soros-financed Russian singing group «Pussy Riot» released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled «Make America Great Again». The video went «viral» on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros’s Purple Revolution in America.

President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

One of Trump’s political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of «a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities». Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as «anti-Semitic». President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros’s son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros’s tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

Source: The Clintons and Soros Launch America’s Purple Revolution