By Catherine Austin Fitts

Theme:

Does it Feel Like Watching the Twilight Zone?

Macron declares the end of Western hegemony as ECB announces major stimulus package

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. delivers an electrifying speech to advocates at a press conference about the passing into law of SB276 & SB714—and asks, “Where are the legal and rational boundaries now that the government can force a medical procedure on children?

Global 3.0 Accelerates: Technocracy, Transhumanism and High Strangeness

Stories:

  • Brexit Blues
  • 9/11 Anniversary
  • Fed Meeting Next Week
  • Ford is Downgraded
  • Indian MP Mahua Moitra’s Maiden Speech – the 7 Signs of Facism
  • Israeli Global Digital Systems Push
  • AT&T in Play
  • 911 Anniversary
  • Whack-a-Doodle Proposals – Voting Age, Diet Selections, Skirt Ban
  • WeWork IPO Stalls
  • Protecting Yourself and Your Enterprise from Ransomware
  • Social Proprieties: Protecting your children and loved ones from entrainment and mind control – Siri Wierdness

Hero:

    Pamela Anderson

  • Contemplate what has happened to Whoopi Goldberg

Let’s Go to the Movies:

American Factory

Blast from the Past

Human Communications Between Reality and Official Reality with Jon Rappoport

Related Reading:

President Macron’s Amazing Admission

‘Hero of Brexit’ Lord James of Blackheath Threatened over EU Defence Union
​
News and Views From the Nefarium Sept 12 2019

Similar Posts

42 Comments

  1. Hello Catherine,

    This is regarding Pamela Anderson, person of the week.

    *I have not watched The View episode, I despise that show. Laughing Aloud!

    It is my opinion that Pamela Anderson is a prime candidate to have been a Mind-Controlled Sex Slave. This is based on her claimed childhood and known rise through the stardom ranks.

    From Wikipedia:
    “Anderson claims she suffered sexual abuse as a child, a fact she revealed publicly in 2014. She said she was molested by a female babysitter from ages 6 to 10, raped by a 25-year-old man when she was age 12, and gang-raped by her boyfriend and six of his friends when she was 14.”

    From what I know of Trauma-Based (likely Multiple Personality Disorder) Mind Control, the above claim is typical.

    As a mid-30s male who was 11-12 years old during the internet goin mainstream, Pamela Anderson was a major figure in the sexual development of an entire generation. She was obviously used for this purpose. She was likely the most searched ‘nude, xxx, celebrity’ on the revolutionary internet. She was part of the pornography entrainment that has destroyed much of our 30 year old males. See Tommy Lee Jones.

    So that leaves a few possibilities as to her current change of tune regarding Julian Assange.

    1. Perhaps she broke her mind control. You know better than I how likely that is.

    2. Maybe she has Multiple Personality Disorder and this is her honest one.

    3. She is part of Management of Perception entertainment/intelligence operations.

    4. Perhaps she chose her sexual icon path herself, is not an intelligence asset, is in full control of her actions, and stands up for the little man vis a vis Julian Assange support.

    There are a few others.

    To me, #3 is the most likely and scares me the most. This could imply that Julian Assange is also Management of Perception and is an intelligence asset.

    What do you think is her motivation?

    Thanks for Reading.

    1. Kelly – in my experience every person in the US population is managed. We divide into two groups – those who know it and those who do not know it. In people of Pamela’s age group, the mind control programming was much more hands on. Now it is much more by electronic means. The question for each one of us is whether or not we can rise above the interference and manipulation in our lives.

      Appreciate your insight in her role on sexual development. I have traditionally avoided the whole magazine and on line sex scene I had been taught to believe it was a giant manipulation/control file trap from very early on. The whole goal of control was to make sure people could not get access to real sex unless they did what they were told. Which is amazing when you realize we should easily be able to control that kind of intimate space without third party interference.

      There has been plenty of intelligence agency manipulation in and around Assange – this is like swimming in a swimming pool with dirty water – no place to stay clean. So I have to judge people by their actions. I know how much personal physical risk she is taking and how well she has spoken out. So I judge her on our actions. She has done an excellent job of defending Assange that I saw – and I am glad she is doing.

      Is it 3 or 4? No way to know. All part of making do what we have to work with. It will be very bad for all of us if we allow Assange to be slow killed in prison. Period.

      1. Thank-you Catherine for that insightful response. I wholeheartedly agree with your points.

        Whether Assange is an intelligence asset (he is a willful participant) or independent of ABC affiliation, his detention is very symbolic. Failure to act on his behalf by the public signifies that the TRUTH is effectively laid to rest in any meaningful, large-scale way.

        Regarding sexuality, the internet and ease of access to pornography:

        The leading-edge millenials (30 year olds) were very susceptible to the rapid progress of the internet. Our parents, baby-boomers, for the most part, were very computer and digitally illiterate. Often, the pre-teens were light-years ahead of the parents in understanding computer operation, internet browsing and basic online privacy. This of course led to unrestricted porn viewing at key hormonal development stages for many vulnerable children. At the time, parents did not comprehend the severity of the situation nor how it could be stopped.

        I believe a huge portion of an entire generation of adolescents were victims of mass sexual assault. My proof?

        One of the types of sexual abuse of a child.
        From: https://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/child-abuse-information/types-child-abuse

        “Exposing children to adult sexuality – Performing sexual acts in front of a child, exposing genitals, telling “dirty” stories, showing pornography to a child.”

        This is widely accepted as a form of abuse.

        The good news regarding manipulation and the two categories people fall into, aware or not aware, is that it can be overcome.

        The crucial step is proper nutrition. Upon the advice of a purported Rothschild, I now drink only distilled water (if I can) and have ceased consuming all meat and most carbohydrates about 1.5 years ago. This was incredibly important and the benefits have played out exactly as foretold. Interestingly, this person also pointed out Catherine Austin Fitts as ‘a knowing woman’.

        The bad news, most people aren’t willing to take the plunge.

          1. Hah! ‘Knowing Woman’. Actually, I looked back. He said “a knowing human”

            A little context.

            The discussion took place in 2011. The Rothschild was fielding questions and speculations about the future; specifically the next ‘big thing’. Your name came up when describing the accuracy of your ‘slow burn’ theory.

            Here is an excerpt:

            “There is an american woman, Catherine Austin Fitts, who has described it better than most! She was a plod in the Bush administration and saw the fraud up close and personal…and was dealt with accordingly.

            She still hasn’t SHUT UP! But few listen anyway!”

            There is more if you are interested, but too much for the comment section.

    2. For accuracy, I believe the video was of Tommy Lee, drummer for Motley Crue, while Tommy Lee Jones is a legitimate actor.

  2. Hi Catherine,

    You had mentioned while you traveled across parts of Canada that Tim Horton’s was only offering Beyond Meat hamburgers and sausages. I was shocked to learn this. Even though I’m a strict vegetarian, I would *not* recommend eating those, especially regularly. Though I have not eaten at a Tim Horton’s, I believe that they haven’t offered hamburgers since the 1960s, before it became a nationwide chain, focusing on coffee and doughnuts instead:
    https://mentalfloss.com/article/58587/tim-horton-originally-sold-hamburgers .

    When Canadians think of Tim Horton’s they don’t equate hamburgers with it. It appears the Beyond Meat options are merely side options, though dangerous and unhealthy ones. I wonder if the change was influenced by Burger King’s acquisition of the Canadian chain, especially since Burger King has offered the “Impossible Burger,” which is a meatless burger that is currently more expensive than Beyond Meat.

    https://www.bk.com/menu-item/impossible-whopper

    1. I looked at the marketing boards in app 20 Tim Hortons going east and then back west. Did not look like a sideline to me. Beyond Burger and Beyond Sausage were major offerings. You should go look. I was there to get coffee and tea.

      1. I’ve gone into a couple of Tim Hortons and yes, the Beyond Meat and Beyond Sausage sandwiches were one the first menu board on the left, along with turkey sandwiches and other sandwiches and wraps. I did notice that there were regular sausage options as well among their breakfast options in the middle of the menu board.

        After asking a few Canadians who have lived in Canada all of their lives, they said that when they think of Tim Hortons they first think of doughnuts, doughnut holes/”Timbits”, and coffee. Then, they think of breakfast foods. None of them thought of hamburgers, as that previous article mentioned that Tim Hortons tried selling burgers in the early 60s, failed, and consequently switched over to coffee and doughnuts.

        Anyway, why Tim Hortons is introducing Beyond Meat products instead of beef products is an interesting question… veganism and vegetarianism continues to be trendy, so perhaps that’s a part of it, and this may be related to trying to “slow down climate change,” which you have discussed is suspect to being an excuse to mind control people and have them eat “food-like products.”

        1. My guess from listening to the investment presentations – a very big top down push across the board to make GMO soy meat fashionable to dramatically protect food company profits. Major corporate move.

  3. On TV in the Twilight Zone of Sweden this week, there was an uncritical interview with a university professor extolling cannibalism for a climate conscious world. It was shown on the main private broadcaster (Swedish) Channel 4. Their parent company even owns a surprising number of US lifestyle magazines. Perhaps the purpose of this was just to scare people? At least the more careless controlled media gets, the more people will see that they are a parody of themselves.

    1. Many purposes:

      If you want to accomplish an outrageous policy that is bad for people you have people promote the much more outrageous so you can then broker the reasonable compromise. So if I want to move the age of consensual sex younger and consensual surgery to 16 – I have a group of progressives promote lower the voting age to 8. Then we compromise at 16 – then I have them at that age for consensual sex, draft and surgery – I slip it in – Now I can massively entrain the 16 year olds and dramatically increase sex slavery and lots of human experimentation. The people who were fighting the 8 year old age will be beaten down and go along thinking they won an improvement.

      Assume this is part of the push to get people to eat GMO soy burgers and insects for very big profits.

      1. http://www.labelourbeef.com/?fbclid=IwAR029W-AK2zkYq9SyhDDvZBYg-mLnQh0Zq3gDHd9cN3EEmeNywjkYSHt_4c. In 2015 Congress voted to end the requirement that meat labels have to tell us where the meat is from. Americans can no longer choose to buy American beef or pork unless country-of-origin labeling (COOL) is restored. Hundreds of millions of pounds of imported beef is being mislabeled as “Products of the USA”. The United States economy suffers a $13.6 billion annual loss to its largest sector of American agriculture: cattle. This is our national grassroots campaign to raise awareness for executive action to bring back mandatory COOL for beef in order to support America’s cattle farmers and rancher. I support this initiative and I wanted to pass it on.

        1. Will post. Thanks. My concern is that removing labeling requirements increase the chances of poor quality meat but of fake meat, diseased meat or worse.

      2. Thank you for your very clear explanation. The poor sales of insect based foods was mentioned in the interview. The move away from ruminants and dairy in the Swedish diet makes little sense in terms of ecology as cows are required access to pasture in the summer and open pasture is some of the most biodiverse land Sweden has. As small dairy farms go out of business, the land is sold off cheap and often becomes a “forest” i.e. tree plantations.

        1. Cows = fertilizer manufacturers. The whole playbook is designed to generate increased corporate profits with fake food and put small farmers out of business.

  4. I love the discussion about living in the intersection of official reality vs reality. I have lived in this zone and managed to survived, though, what I call “the soul of money” channels, can be tricky to navigate.
    Please keep up the discussion and unpacking of this very relevant territory.

  5. Another enlightening M&M, Catherine. Thank you!

    Back on American Factory, I think the main reason why the Chinese workers are willing to work overtime without pay and work more efficiently “as a team,” is less due to a mentality of supporting the organization as a whole, and more due to the pragmatic understanding that if they don’t do it, there are 1.4 billion other people who will, figuratively speaking. The competition in China and Asia, more generally, is usually exponentially more cutthroat than in North America, and the Chinese elites and business owners certainly know how to use that knowledge to their advantages.

    1. True. Part of that is accepting responsibility to get the plant to profitability. They understand that you can only eat what you grown. Too many of the Americans had lots that sense. Getting embroiled with a union before the plant is profitable is suicide. Headed in the opposite direction.

      1. I understand what you are saying, and conventionally it makes sense, especially from a management point of view. The American workers were “biting the hand that fed them,” when previously they were not even eating. However, from the point of view of labor, and though unions are far from perfect, they are a necessary evil in corporate-labor negotiations. Many questions are left unanswered, still today, since there was not an organized effort to negotiate. I’m not sure how many of the below questions a union could get answered, but it certainly had the potential to be more than without one, since the answer without one was zero.

        For example, is it unreasonable to ask whether the $10 million loss (monthly?) was accurate? Did management take this loss into account *already* in long-term planning? Where was the absolute break-off point where the factory/business would need to shut down? How much of the supposed loss came from executive compensation, which ultimately could be reduced, “for the sake of the company’s survival?” If the company was willing to spend $1 million on union-busting propaganda, it was likely budgeted, especially since the owner early on expressed his concern for unionizing and unions were previously strong in that area. What plans were there if union-busting efforts were unsuccessful?

        For the Chinese workers, it’s a race to the bottom with respect to wages. Most laborers in China (and Asia, generally) have no representation and consequently take what they are given. Along with the high population and fierce competition for *any* jobs, these are a couple of reasons why labor is so cheap in Asia. Fear motivates those workers: the real fear of being homeless, the real fear of literally starving, and the fear of shame, in a system without a social net. But even in China, this has been apparently changing, especially with the slowing economy.

        https://www.dw.com/en/labor-rights-movements-gaining-momentum-in-china/a-18959557

        I would guess this is one of the reasons why Vietnam, where labor rights are lacking, to say the least, has become a more favorable place for cheap labor:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/business/trump-tpp-trade-vietnam-labor-environment.html

        Once Fuyao (or any corporation) did turn a profit, it would have been hard-pressed for workers to get a raise without organizing, especially since automation was likely in the equation to begin with. Hence, there was a need to “bite the hand that feeds you.”

        The American workers that wanted to organize, at the very least, were protecting their ability to get some answers. With automation, which I speculate was always in the equation, those who didn’t organize lost as well as those who did, but the latter would have at least had a chance to negotiate.

        Thoughts?

        1. All economic enterprise is subject to performance. Have to sell it for more than it costs you to make it. However, unless you have the basic conditions of a market economy, pitting global capital against labor is a depopulation plan. You are harvesting people like natural resources – see the Sir James Goldsmith videos. He nails it. Fiat currency as opposed to sound money is problem #1. No transparency/complete secrecy on government and central bank money and operations is problem #2. Invisible weaponry and mind control engaged in surveillance capitalism is #3. The engineering of capital on a functional basis instead of a place based to allow wide discrepancies in access to intellectual capital and financial capital is problem #4. The poisoning of the population with heavy metals and GMO and other experimentation is problem #5. A leadership that is above the law is problem #6….yes, we need organization – but we need smart organization, not stupid organizations who are as fantasy based as the fake media.

          A smart union would be focused on getting to profitability and earning a share of growing profits for its workers. A smart union creates alignment working with all the issues you describe.

          1. I’ve gone through a few of the Sir James Goldsmith-Charlie Rose 1994 interviews again. I believe these are the two parts you are referring to:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI (starting at 5:20)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTzPmn-87w (starting at 0:00)

            Sorry, I’m unclear about specifically how pitting global capital against labor is a depopulation plan, besides creating that race to the bottom to find people willing to work for as little as possible. Corporations have been harvesting people/labor like natural resources for some time now, especially and most clearly in developing nations.

            Having the power to push back/negotiate with a corporation with a well-organized labor force, seems to me the only way to survive for the time being, before automation takes over, which goes back to my initial point that the American workers were right to organize, unlike the Chinese workers, who have been conditioned/”in a trance” not to question or stand up to “authority,” especially since that’s all they likely have known in China. Questioning authority is not culturally acceptable in most modern Asian societies.

            Yes, a smart union would do exactly as you have said, but there needs to be one in existence first. Or have I missed something?

          2. Sounds pretty clear to me:

            Sir James Goldsmith from an interview in November 1994, on the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) which created the World Trade Organization:

            The idea is to create what is known today as efficient agriculture and to impose it worldwide. Let me just give you one [impact] of GATT on the third world. The idea of GATT is that the efficiency of agriculture throughout the world should …produce the most amount of food for the least cost. But what does that really mean? …What is cost?

            When you produce the intensified agriculture and you reduce the number of people on the land, what happens to those people?…They are chased into the towns. They lose their jobs on the land. If they go into the towns, there are no jobs, there is no infrastructure. The social costs of those people, the financial costs of the infrastructure has to be added to the cost of producing food.

            On top of that, you are breaking families, you are uprooting them, you are throwing them into the slums. Do you realize that in Brazil, the favelas (slums) did not exist before the Green Revolution of intensifying agriculture.

            In the world today there are 3.1 billion people still living in rural communities. If GATT succeeds and we are able to impose modern methods of agriculture worldwide, so as to bring them to the level of Canada or Australia, what will happen? 2.1 billion people will be uprooted from the land and chased into the towns throughout the world. It is the single greatest disaster [in our history] greater than any war.

            We have to change priorities. Let’s take agriculture. Instead of just trying to produce the maximum amount for the cheapest direct costs, let us try to take into account the other costs. Our purpose should not be just the one dimensional cost of food. We want the right amount of food, for the right quality for health and the right quality for the environment and employing enough people so as to maintain social stability in the rural areas.

            If not, and we chase 2.1 billion people into the slums of the towns, we will create on a scale unheard of mass migration – what we saw in Rwanda with 2 million people will be nothing — so as to satisfy an economic doctrine. … We would be creating 2 billion refuges. We would be creating mass waves of migration which none of us could control. We would be destroying the towns which are already largely destroyed. Look at Mexico, Rio, look at our own towns.

            And we are doing this for economic dogma?…What is this nonsense? Everything is based in our modern society on improving an economic index…The result is that we are destroying the stability of our societies, because we are worshiping the wrong god… Economic index.

            The economy, like everything else, is a tool which should be submitted to, should be subject to, the true and fundamental requirements of society.

            …This is the establishment against the rest of society… I am for business, so long as it does not devour society…[But] we have a conflict of interest. Big business loves having access to an unlimited supply of give away labor…

            …You cannot enrich a country by destroying the health of its population. The health of a society cannot be measured by corporate profitability…

            …We have allowed the instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters.

          3. Yes, there needs to be a smart union. Not promoting or paying dues to stupid unions might help get us there.

      2. I source some parts for my product line from China… I have been trying to source them here in the U.S. for years. I HAVE found a couple manufacturers that will work with me, and their product quality is superb.

        I find some factories that do the work… call them, and about 1 or 2 out of 10 respond. The ones that do respond, want Minimum Order Quantities that would require a $50k to $80k spend, and their turn arounds are 3 to 6 months.

        It’s no wonder Asia has kicked our a**es. Unions and the burden they place on manufacturers most certainly are a part of why I keep running into this.

        I’m sure are some small “boutique” factories in America that can do the work… but they are difficult to find, typically because they are already dialed into a niche market demand.

        I think there is a big opportunity for small business and small factories to collaborate on profitable product offerings, if they could only somehow find each other. Yes… it raises risk when time and money are invested in sliver thin market specialization… but e-commerce has made market testing profoundly cost effective these days, and make costs for testing for demand almost trivial compared to “the old days”.

  6. Catherine,

    Reading/Listening Your work, Jeffery Gundlach, and Michael Hudson.

    The Consensus seems that Trump is attempting to paper over and lose or balance the reserve currency status.

    Making it equal to J.P. Morgans recent advice to its UHNW clients currency exposure. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/PROD-19-683-FX-Exposure-1800px_v01A.png?itok=IQA-w1y6. This is almost directly equal to the SDR basket.

    Trumps strategy “disorder by design” with constant firing of cabnient members,war posturing, Tweeting at the FED, and slapping tariffs on all the countries, is very planned. So global/domestic investors begin to shift their assets elsewhere, precieveing the USA as unstable. Therefore Countries are able to build alternative routes of trade/commerce.

    This will allow the US to paper over the debts/obligations in the short term of Now-2024ish? Inviting significant inflation to America. Once most of the debts are papered over or refinanced at near zero(negative)rates. They will return to a more sound monetary policy of much higher interest rates(gundlachs 5%).

    The Big Banks Stress Tests by the federal reserve seems to predict a
    1) 10% in unemployment
    2) 8% decline in GDP
    3) 1/4th decline in home prices
    4) 1/3 decline in commercial real estate
    5) 1/2 stock price decline

    The big banks are well capitalized and ready to Loot at fire sale. Which explains Warren Buffets stock position. Big oil is also circling Permian basin.

    Once the turmoil of the coming years is over. I see an extremely solidified Neo-feudal class structure, or a New World Order.

    1. Many scenarios are possible….most of them are hard times for most people which is why building resiliancy and maintaining coherence is so important.

  7. Catherine, I had a questions regarding Corporations Share Buy Backs.

    Mainstream analysis will say this is a return of capital to shareholders, or on a more pessimistic note, executive compensations boosting.

    But it seems that this is a way to “crowd out” little people from owning shares in the means of production/dividends/cartels? Almost a less aggressive form of BoJ direct share purchasing, which I am sure the FED will do at some point.

    So is there a more sinister agenda behind the share purchasing?

      1. Thanks!

        Share buybacks is a very important story. I have my eye out for a serious in depth study.

        Question is – can you print money and buy the whole world before anyone organizes to stop you? Quite an experiment.

Comments are closed.