ith the Ukraine war expanding and the threat of nuclear catastrophe rising, Bill Clinton has written an article in The Atlantic magazine trying to defend what many see as indefensible: his administration’s support for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in March 1999 into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic against a pledge by the Bush administration to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”
Clinton had been warned at the time by Russian President Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) that NATO expansion would result in “nothing but humiliation for Russia” and could provoke a new Cold War.
Yeltsin told Clinton: “How do you think it looks to us if one bloc [from the Cold War] continued to exist when the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia.”[1]
Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton at a summit in Helsinki Finland in 1997. [Source: icds.ee]
A similar warning was issued by George F. Kennan, the father of the Cold War containment doctrine.
He wrote in an op-ed in February 1997 that NATO expansion would amount to a “strategic blunder of epic proportions” and the “most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era,” as it would “inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion,” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations,”[2] which is exactly what happened.
The idea of the neutral interest rate is unrealistic. The Fed attempts to establish an interest rate that corresponds to the conditions of the free market. Obviously, this is in contradiction to the free market, since in a free market there is no central bank setting the interest rate.
Given the impossible goal that the Fed tries to reach, we do not expect Fed policy makers to become wise and all knowing with regard to the correct level of interest rates. A better alternative is to leave the economy alone.
On April 19, 2022, at the Economic Club in New York, the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank president Charles Evans said the Fed is likely to lift by year end its federal funds rate target range close to the neutral range of between 2.25 to 2.50 percent. Furthermore, on April 21, 2022, Fed chairman Jerome Powell corroborated this by stating that the Fed wants to raise its benchmark rate to the neutral level.
By popular thinking, the neutral rate is one that is consistent with stable prices and a balanced economy. Hence, in order to attain economic and price stability, Fed policy makers should navigate the federal funds rate toward the neutral rate range. The Swedish economist Knut Wicksell in the late nineteenth century articulated this framework of thinking, which has its origins in the eighteenth-century writings of the British economist Henry Thornton.
One can assume that the current framework of central bank operations throughout the world is based to a large degree on Wicksell’s writings, which means the key to comprehending the rationale of central banks actions is understanding the writings of Knut Wicksell.
The Neutral Interest Rate Framework
According to Wicksell the neutral rate is (Wicksell labels the neutral rate as the natural rate):
A certain rate of interest on loans which is neutral in respect to commodity prices, and tend neither to raise nor to lower them. This is necessarily the same as the rate of interest which would be determined by supply and demand if no use were made of money and all lending were effected in the form of real capital goods. It comes to much the same thing to describe it as the current value of the natural rate of interest on capital.
In this way of thinking, the neutral rate of interest is defined as the rate at which the demand for physical loan capital coincides with the supply of savings expressed in physical magnitudes.1 Wicksell makes a clear distinction between the interest rate that is determined in financial markets and the neutral interest rate that is set without money. While the interest rate in financial markets is determined by demand and supply for money, the neutral interest rate is set by real factors. Thus, he wrote:
Now if money is loaned at this same rate of interest, it serves as nothing more than a cloak to cover a procedure which, from the purely formal point of view, could have been carried on equally well without it. The conditions of economic equilibrium are fulfilled in precisely the same manner.
According to the neutral rate framework, the main source of economic instability is because the money market interest rate is not in line with the neutral rate. In the Wicksell’s framework, money only affects the price level. The effect of money on the price level is however not direct, as it operates via the gap between the money market interest rate and the neutral rate. The mechanism works as following: if the market rate falls below the neutral rate, investment will exceed saving implying that aggregate demand will be greater than aggregate supply.
Assuming that the excess demand is financed by the expansion in bank loans this leads to the creation of new money, which in turn pushes the general level of prices up. Conversely, if the market rate rises above the neutral rate, savings will exceed investment, aggregate supply will exceed aggregate demand, bank loans and the stock of money will contract, and prices will fall (on this topic, see this Fed working paper). Whenever the market rate is in line with the neutral rate, the economy is in a state of equilibrium and there is neither upward nor downward pressures on the price level.
If it were possible to ascertain and specify the current value of the natural rate, it would be seen that any deviation of the actual money rate from this natural rate is connected with rising or falling prices according as the deviation is downward or upward.
Wicksell held that since the supply of real capital is limited while the supply of money can be regarded as elastic, there is no reason to assume that the money market interest rate would normally agree with the neutral real rate.2 Furthermore, Wicksell maintained that to establish whether monetary policy is tight or loose, it is not enough to pay attention to the level of money market interest rates, but rather one needs to contrast money market interest rates with the neutral rate. Thus if the market interest rate is above the neutral rate then the policy stance is tight. Conversely, if the market rate is below the neutral rate then the policy stance is loose. Thus, according to Wicksell, whenever the money market rate is matched with the neutral rate the economy is in a state of equilibrium and there are neither upward nor downward pressure on the price level.
On March 10, Canada managed to get some thirty countries to sign a second, very Orwellian declaration, welcoming – in the name of press freedom – the censorship in the West of Russia Today and the Sputnik agency, two Russian public media organizations.
The first foreign fighters to arrive in Ukraine at the start of the war in February, 2022 were Canadians. The first foreign officer arrested by Russian forces on May 3 was a Canadian general. Clearly, Canada, although more than 6,000 kilometers away from Ukraine, has a hidden involvement in this conflict.
In this article, I will show that all Canadian Liberal governments have supported the Ukrainian Banderites since the beginning of the Second World War. They had it both ways during that war, fighting the Nazis, but supporting the Banderites. Worse still, the current Canadian government is composed of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, flanked by a Banderite deputy, Chrystia Freeland.
While the CIA’s connections to the Nazis during the Cold War were not revealed until 1975 with the Pike, Church and Rockfeller Congressional Commissions, and only ended with President Jimmy Carter, the Canadian Liberal Party’s ties to the Nazis continue. Canada is the only country in the world, outside of the Ukraine, to have a Banderite minister, and what’s more, she is the number two in its government.
Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King after his meeting with Führer Adolf Hitler in Berlin (June 29th, 1937).
In 1940, when the United Kingdom was at war but the United States was not, the Canadian Liberal government of William King created the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) to help anti-Bolshevik immigrants against the pro-Soviet Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC) and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Pro-Soviet libraries and synagogues were banned.
The Liberal Party of the Kingdom of Canada was not created to promote individualism against conservative ideas, but against the Republican idea [1].
During the Second World War, Prime Minister William King was well liked by his fellow citizens, but he was booed by his soldiers when he visited them in Europe. The Liberal Party always held anti-Russian positions, presenting them as anti-Soviet until 1991, and always interpreted Christianity as opposed to Judaism.
Also, at the end of the Second World War, Canada was the main refuge for Lyon Mackenzie (35,000 immigrants) and Baltic Nazis. Among them were Volodymyr Kubijovyč and “Michael Chomiak” whose real name was Mykhailo Khomiak, the editors of the main Nazi newspaper in Central Europe, Krakivs’ki Visti.
Michael Chomiak with Nazi dignitaries.
Chomiak, who worked under the direct control of the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, never denied his collaborationist past. On the contrary, he always militated for the OUN(B). It is in this spirit that he raised his granddaughter, Chrystia Freeland, the current Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
Communism depends on the atomization of society. Nothing must stand between the state and the individual. The family unit must be destroyed. The individual must owe his or her only allegiance to the all-powerful state and the party which controls it.
But, perhaps, most of all, Communists must destroy religion. The idea that individuals might place their fate in anything other than the all-powerful, omnipresent government is anathema. It cannot be tolerated. You must stand powerless and alone in the face of your oppressor who owns you body and soul.
The Soviets set the example in this regard. As part of their effort to consolidate power in the new Soviet Union, they destroyed churches, synagogues, and mosques. They jailed and executed religious leaders. In place of belief in a creator, they did their best to substitute scientific atheism, which amounted to worship of the state and its leaders.
Our own modern-day American Marxists have the same playbook. Under the pretext that they are fighting for reproductive rights, they are launching a war on religion. Sunday was the start of the offensive to crush the church in America.
A Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Family Action early Sunday. Flames were reported coming from the building shortly after 6 am. The outside of the building also was sprayed with graffiti depicting an anarchy symbol, an anti-police slogan, and the phrase, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”
Wisconsin Family Action’s website indicates “It is the mission of Wisconsin Family Action to advance Judeo-Christian principles and values in Wisconsin by strengthening, preserving and promoting marriage, family life and liberty.” The website shows an explicitly religious organization focused on traditional Christian teaching and working with churches in Wisconsin.
On the same day that Wisconsin Family Action was firebombed groups attempted to disrupt church services at locations all over the country. At the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, left-wing protesters tried shutting down Sunday mass to protest in support of abortion. They were ultimately forced out by security & parishioners but not before they had entered the church in numbers and disrupted services.
In Seattle, a group of protesters attempted to force their way into Saint James Cathedral. They were ordered to leave but moved on to church property outside the church anyway. They were ultimately forced off the property by security guards.
In New York activists gathered outside the Basilica of Old Saint Patrick and attempted to disrupt services. The action included the yelling of profanities and an individual in a pink unitard jumping around with pink replicas of aborted fetuses yelling “I am killing the babies” and “God killed his son why can’t I?” The crowd accompanied the action by singing “Thank God for abortion.”
This is the British hand behind the current phase of Russiagate 5.0 which has come closer to its objectives of running an American coup than at any other moment during the past four years. This is the vision of a dystopic post-nation state world order managed by mis-anthropic technocrats who wish to lord over a technetronic feudal dark age in the 21st century and beyond.
This week, I took the time to watch a new documentary produced by Dinesh D’Souza titled ‘2000 Mules’ which utilizes voluminous geotracking and video evidence to demonstrate conclusively the scope of the fraud which occured in November 2020 which saw the elections stolen from US President Trump. The documentary focuses on a quantitative analysis of the data, but avoids speculating on those causal agencies that would have the means, intent and power to put such a coup d’etat into effect. This was the right decision, as D’Souza’s purpose was to conclusively demonstrate the scope of the fraud, not venture into ‘why’ it happened, or who dunnit.
Since 2000 Mules is going viral, I thought it prudent to re-publish an article that I had written in December 2020 in order to present the evidence of the British hand which managed the coup that saw a cultish technocratic takeover of the White House. The star performers in this drama will be a Don Quixote/Sancho Panza team of George Soros and Lord Mark Malloch Brown.
The British Hand Behind the Coup
Throughout the four-year drama of Russiagate, the hand of British intelligence has revealed itself continuously.
From the obvious role of Sir Richard Dearlove and his former MI6 underlying Christopher Steele who together played a driving role in shaping the dodgy dossier, to their involvement with Oxford Rhodes Scholar Strobe Talbott in composing, promoting and marketing the fraudulent dossier to targeted members of Congress and media, to British Ambassador Sir Darroch caught “flooding the zone” with British intelligence assets to shape Trump’s perception of the world, to the array of British entrapment operations that targeted Michael Flynn as early as 2014 in London… wherever one looks, the hand of British intelligence seems to be everywhere.
While vast effort is made to downplay the British roots of the deep state by the media which tends to portray this problem from a partisan narrative of “democratic party corruption”, this sleight of hand misses the causal nexus and demands we believe that the tail truly wags the dog.
The uncomfortable truth which many are either too afraid, lazy or corrupt to admit is that since the moment John F Kennedy died on November 22, 1963, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have undergone an slow take-over by this foreign parasite. The thing that has come to be known as the “deep state” was never based on one party or another, and never emanated from anything native to the Constitutional traditions of the US government itself as I outlined in my previous article “Understanding the Trifold Nature of the Deep State”.
While the Republican party of George Bush was in power, this deep state had used its controls of computerized vote counting to rig elections in 2000 and 2004 in its favor as showcased brilliantly in the 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy. Later, when it was time for a controlled opposition to take power in 2008, it did the same thing under a different cast of characters.
While one side of the unipolar world government agenda was driven by a view that the USA should forever be the primary global police force governing a zero sum system of perpetual war, with an unelected elite managing the system from above, the other side believed that the USA should surrender its claims to sovereignty to an international global body with unelected technocrats and financiers at the top managing the zero sum system of perpetual war from above.
Notice the common denominator?
Election Theft as Russiagate 5.0
Now that it has become increasingly clear that mass election fraud has swept across the USA in an effort to accomplish what four years of Russiagate failed to achieve, yet another light has fallen upon the British hand behind Biden which aims to dissolve any nationalist spirit remaining in the embattled republic.
As I outlined in my last report, the largest private computer voting system in the USA which services 30 states and 70 million voters was shown to be at the heart of the current election theft. In that article, it was made clear that Dominion Voting Systems is a Canadian company which dominates the USA’s private computerized voting systems and is closely tied to another larger company called Smartmatic whose operating systems, and even software it absorbed during Obama’s administration.
For those still out of the loop, Smartmatic furnishes voting machines and its software (backdoor codes and all) to governments all around the world and is highly enmeshed with the Clinton Foundation, Soros’ Open Society and Nancy Pelosi’s very own Chief of Staff.
Not only that, but the key figure controlling Smartmatic is none other than Lord Mark Malloch Brown, a former vice chairman of George Soros’ Investment Funds (2007), as well as Soros’ Open Society Institute and World Economic Forum, former Vice President at the World Bank (1995-1999), UN Administrator for Development (1999-2005), UN Deputy Secretary General and UK Minister of State for Africa, Asia and the UN (2007-2009). These are just a few hats he has worn in recent years which we will explore in greater detail.
Lord Malloch Brown: Not Your Typical British Agent
Through his lifelong affiliation with Soros, Lord Malloch Brown (Knight of the Order of St George and St Michael) played the role of color revolutionary godfather and key controller of such “technocrat friendly puppet leaders” as Corazon Aquino as well as her son Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines, Georgia’s George Saakashvili and even the hapless talking ego Barack Obama.
After working through an extended “apprenticeship” under the cover of UN aid worker, and marauding journalist for the London Economist, Malloch Brown found himself working for a Washington consulting firm named Sawyer Miller in 1985. It was at this time Malloch Brown was deployed to become the advisor and speech writer to Philippine opposition leader Corazon (Cory) Aquino under the supervision of then Secretary of State George Shultz. Corazon was a darling of the western establishment but had the nearly impossible task of challenging the popular nationalist President Ferdinand Marcos who had steered his country into economic sovereignty in opposition to international financiers for since his inauguration in 1965.
Applying all of the arts of perception management and marketing, Malloch Brown took control of Aquino’s campaign transforming it into the “People Power Revolution” that was in many ways the first successful color revolution of our modern times. Knowing that votes would likely favor the incumbent Markos, Malloch Brown wrote that he drafted Aquino’s victory speech before the elections and had her deliver it before votes were even finalized- and which accomplices in the media were all too happy to project publicly fueling the mythology that Corazon had won.
Describing these events years later, Malloch Brown said: “An outstanding accomplishment during the Cory campaign was to produce an exit poll that indicated that she had won. It landed on the front page of the Inquirer and had a profound impact as it planted the idea that Aquino had won over Marcos… Marcos did not really recover after that. It was a very exciting experience to watch.”
Malloch Brown failed to mention that the “polling station results” which produced the false perception that Corazon had won were manipulated by George Shultz’s local agents survey firms Social Weather Station, and Pulse Asia which have never been held accountable for their role in the anti-Marcos coup.
“We appear to be in the process of killing the goose that has laid some very golden Eggs.”- Douglas Murray, author of The War on the West
“[A]s recently as 2006, about 18% of social scientists self-identified as Marxists.”- Bryan Caplan, Ph.D., The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia (March 21, 2015, EconLib.org)
I was always ashamed to be a Westerner. A civilization, I was told all through my public schooling years, uniquely contributed to the world in the following ways: slavery, child labor, bad working conditions, greed, sexism, genocide, racism, McCarthyism, and a bunch of useful idiots for the 1%.
Recently Douglas Murray authored a book titled The War on the West in which he obliterates the conspiracy theory, shall we say, that the West is a uniquely evil collection of civilizations unworthy of preserving or appreciating having no redeeming qualities.
It’s clear how seldom people develop their default ideas or world views based on empirical research or abstract thinking. This is where the power of historical narratives comes into play. They (leftists advocating ’social justice’) strip away competing allegiances of families, churches, and nations. By poisoning the well of prevailing interpretations of past events (historical narratives) which give people a sense of identity and belonging, the enemies of the west then would have fertile ground to establish an empire of their own.
As Murray says, “The West was the problem. The dissolving of the West was a solution.”
Section One: Race
Murray explains racism as having to do with “dismissing people, vilifying them, or generalizing about them simply because of the color of their skin.” Consider a hypothetical: imagine someone says, “Asians benefited from Ghangis Khan conquering of land. Asian violence is evident in the mass murder campaigns of Emperor Hirohito, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, and Pol Pot. Asians today need to acknowledge their higher income privilege and apologize for the crimes of their ancestors.” Any sane person should see this for what it is: a disgusting, cruel, racist, unnecessary provocative generalization which misallocates guilt based on an accident of birth.
All Murray is saying in this section is that racism is abhorrent and no double standards should exist for any group, including people of European ancestry. When I first heard this line of reasoning I was hesitant to accept the idea that a majority could possibly be victimized by a small minority; then I realized there are 535 members of Congress and 330 million Americans and then I could see how. For the record Murray makes clear he is not vilifying minorities at all, his primary examples of such racism come from whites: Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, American legislators, National Geographic, Jimmy Fallon’s studio audience applauding low white birth rates, and Michel Moore’s Stupid White Men.
Murray also introduces readers to the tragedy of Texas man Tony Timpa. I have witnessed this story alone change the heart and mind of social justice advocates, correctly switching the focus from “white supremacy” to “government supremacy.” I can’t recommend this section highly enough.
Section Two: History
In 1952 Samuel Kramer, one of the world’s leading Assyriologists, an expert in Sumerian history and Sumerian language, translated tablets which were found in Iraq dated between 2100 BCE – 2050 BCE. The tablets are known as the Code of Ur-Nammu, one of the oldest legal texts known to mankind. In the list of 32 laws, the word “slave” is found 9 times.
For most experts, deflation is bad news since it generates expectations for a continued decline in prices, leading consumers to postpone the purchases of present goods, since they expect to purchase them at lower prices in the future. Consequently, this weakens the overall flow of current spending and this, in turn, weakens the economy. Economic activity, believe the experts, is a circular flow of money. Spending by one individual becomes the earnings of another individual, and spending by another individual becomes a part of the previous individual’s earnings.
If people have become less confident about the future decide to reduce their spending, this weakens the circular flow of money. Once an individual spends less, this worsens the situation of some other individual, who in turn also cuts his spending.
According to the former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke,
Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand—a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers. Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending—namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.
Murray Rothbard, however, held that in a free market the rising purchasing power of money (shown by declining prices) makes goods more accessible to people. He wrote:
Improved standards of living come to the public from the fruits of capital investment. Increased productivity tends to lower prices (and costs) and thereby distribute the fruits of free enterprise to all the public, raising the standard of living of all consumers. Forcible propping up of the price level prevents this spread of higher living standards.
Economist Joseph Salerno adds:
Historically, the natural tendency in the industrial market economy under a commodity money such as gold has been for general prices to persistently decline as ongoing capital accumulation and advances in industrial techniques led to a continual expansion in the supplies of goods. Thus throughout the nineteenth century and up until the First World War, a mild deflationary trend prevailed in the industrialized nations as rapid growth in the supplies of goods outpaced the gradual growth in the money supply that occurred under the classical gold standard. For example, in the US from 1880 to 1896, the wholesale price level fell by about 30 percent, or by 1.75% per year, while real income rose by about 85 percent, or around 5 percent per year.1
Money and Money out of “Thin Air”
Money emerged because it could support the market economy more efficiently than barter. The distinguishing characteristic of money is its role as general medium of exchange, evolving from the most marketable commodity. On this Ludwig von Mises wrote:
Newsom carelessly failed to mention the other 71 genders who can also give birth. Schools in the US will begin teaching children all 72 genders and will allow them to choose which ones they like the best. Biden has removed the word “mother” from all government documents in favor of “birthing person.” How will they explain to children that a uterus is necessary to produce life?
Gavin Newsom’s goal to become the most woke governor in America has backfired as all words are now deemed offensive as well as hand gestures. The internet is ablaze with angry voters who want Gavin out of office for his transphobic comment. His crime? He stated that men cannot get pregnant. “If men could get pregnant, this wouldn’t even be a conversation,” the non-inclusive and intolerant governor stated in support of Roe v. Wade. Blaming cis-gendered males is OK and encouraged, but stating that they are unable to carry a child is not.
Newsom carelessly failed to mention the other 71 genders who can also give birth. Schools in the US will begin teaching children all 72 genders and will allow them to choose which ones they like the best. Biden has removed the word “mother” from all government documents in favor of “birthing person.” How will they explain to children that a uterus is necessary to produce life?
The Ministry of Truth will certainly clarify the situation for us. Gavin Newsom said abortion “will be the defining issue of the 2022 election,” which is exactly why the Supreme Court document was leaked. Newsom said he will fight to protect “women” – oh no, there he goes again. If his campaign is built on angering the left, he better tread lightly.
MCViewPoint 