In preparing articles for this blog, I usually read at least 5-10 articles for everyone that makes it here for readers to consider. For the most part, I try to stick with news and opinions from mainstream sources or alternative media sites that interview well known guests with verifiable backgrounds. But I do come across a lot of other views and opinions. So this post will publish a couple out there for readers to consider.
Before posting these links, I will issue this disclaimer. When I publish articles here, I try to avoid taking a position or promoting an agenda. I don't view that as my role for this blog. I want this blog to be a source of information and ideas that readers view as credible and easy to verify by doing their own research. These two articles will depart somewhat from that approach in that the authors are not well known and they have opinions that are somewhat outside the mainstream views.
So why publish them here? When I find articles that are well written that promote an alternative view that is at least plausible, I will publish them from time to time. The reason is that I think readers should see a wide variety of interpretations of events so long as they are well presented and are at least within the realm of possibility. If they provide supporting documentation for their views, all the better.
I write this blog as someone who is "just the average guy". This means I am not "inside the system" even though I do get some great input from time to time from some who are that helps me in getting a diverse range of opinions and better understanding. Being an "outsider" I have no way to know what really goes on inside the system other than what is available in the public media and the statements those inside the system are willing to make in public. All I can do is listen to the various opinions and then follow events to see what opinions turn out to be correct over time.
So, with all that said, I present these two alternative views of events that readers can look at and decide how much weight to give them. I have no way to verify if these views are right or wrong and make no public endorsement for or against the opinions presented in these articles.
Here are the links:
Quick Summary: These are both fairly long articles so for those who don't have time to read them here is the short version. Both articles promote the idea that the conflicts we see around the world are not really genuine, but are somewhat theatrical in nature. They suggest that the powers that be at the top of the present system use these "engineered conflicts" to condition the public to accept major changes that will lead to one global centralized system.
For example, the authors of these two articles do not believe the BRICS nations are really intending to leave the present system. They view this as just a show to create conflict that will cause the present system to come to an end in stages and eventually they will all end up back under one global system (probably under the IMF and BIS using the SDR currency).
There is an easy way to test this theory out over time. As events unfold, look to see if the present system breaks down into factions that genuinely compete against each other or if one centralized system emerges at the end of the day. Then look to see if new policies and currencies are "forced" on people or if they are introduced as free choices people can make.
If a centralized system emerges that compels people to use one currency and reduces individual freedom, these alternative views will have strong credibility. If that does not happen, these views will have low credibility. At least readers here will know of them and can follow events over time to see what actually happens versus people's opinions of what might happen. This is why I don't promote my opinions. They don't really matter. What matters is what actually happens over time. That is the service we try to provide here on this blog for readers as we follow the events ourselves. We do live in historic times.