May 11 • 16M

Ep. 114 - Following the Money to Future Earth

4
 
1.0×
0:00
-16:13
Open in playerListen on);
Intelligent views on headline news.
Episode details
Comments

Truth is stranger than fiction.

When trying to decipher the intentions of the political class -- whether we're talking about city, county, state, or federal politicians, or the Davos global elite -- it's best to follow the money.

With that in mind, today's headline news informs us that Congress just voted to send $40 BILLION dollars to Ukraine, which is more than 20% higher than what Biden asked for. Celebrating the fact that this bill was passed in bipartisan fashion, with 70% of republicans joining 100% of democrats (358-58), the justification for this shocking amount of spending is utterly lacking. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene sums up the disconnect quite well:

Shilling out some $8.7 billion for "economic support" in Ukraine, $900 million for Ukrainian non-profits, and $54 million for covid relief in Ukraine, among other things, many people are questioning how this helps the 2 out of 3 American families who are living paycheck to paycheck while getting hammered by inflation that's at a 40 year high, and struggling to afford gas and feed their hungry babies.

Meanwhile, U.S. arms manufacturers -- aka the Military Industrial Complex -- are giddy about larger-than-ever profits being driven by the continual shipments of advanced military equipment to Ukraine. On top of sending drones, missiles, anti-armor systems and radar, heavy artillery, armored vehicles, aircraft, and over 7,000 small arms and 50 million rounds of ammunition, the Pentagon has also sent an "unspecified number" of Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels to support Ukraine.

And, for the record, that was before Congress agreed to send another $40 billion dollars in support. That said, the U.S. is not alone in providing support to Ukraine. Top EU officials have also pitched a multi-trillion dollar plan to help "rebuild Ukraine" once the dust settles. This outpouring of support calls for a Marshal-style plan, which is a reference to the Marshal Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II.

Interestingly enough, the Marshal Plan was quickly expanded by President Harry Truman's Point Four Program, which eventually led to the creation of several new international organizations, such as the International Finance Corporation. These newly war-formed organizations complimented other international agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

War causes broad swaths of destruction, all while generating handsome profits for the Military-Industrial-Complex and the banks who fund them. These banks are then positioned to sweep in and save the day, offering much needed assistance to the beleaguered peasants left standing in the rubble of their once great cultures. As a bonus, the banks get incredible deals on war-torn properties and decimated industrial assets.

Funding public-private partnerships to help the victims of war, the World Bank, IMF, et al, can then help rebuild these countries into the blossoming state-dependent democracies they always wanted them to be. This builds unity, solidarity, and a sense of global harmony--at least that's what they want everyone to believe.

The other perspective is that global forces used war to topple the government, destroy existing society, and impose their own form of governance, much to the chagrin of the local peasants. But for most, being conquered and bought and paid for, is far better than starving to death while clinging to the ideals of self-sovereignty and national identity.

And finally, to really stretch the head and try to connect some dots, consider this headline:

Military-style Marshall Plan Needed to Combat Climate Change

Is there a pattern here? Though one might infer insidious intent, I'll leave that for you to decide. I'm sure that it's all part of the plan to ensure support for the greater good and help fund the globalist vision for Future Earth. What could go wrong?