ISIS Revealed as an American Secret?

It Looks Like a Recession Because It Is One

OBAMA 'OUT TO LUNCH' AS GLOBAL COLLAPSE DESTROYS MARKETS

Obama Is On the Verge of Starving Millions of Americans Into Submission-Absolute Proof

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

Obama’s Motivation for the Imposition of Martial Law and Using Food As a Weapon Against US Citizens

Let me quickly review Obama’s possible motivations for martial law. First, his administration faces the brunt of three separate monetary debts that they will default on: (1) the national deficit is $19 trillion dollars, which could be paid down in about 30-40 years if we tightened our financial belts; (2) the unfunded liabilities of such social programs as welfare, social security and Medicare to the turn of $238 trillion dollars; and, (3) the staggering derivatives debt that modern-day nation states have agreed to assume in the amount of at least $1.5 quadrillion dollars. Keep in mind that the sum total of wealth for the planet is only $65-75 trillion dollars. The derivatives debt, alone, for Bank of America is $80 trillion dollars which is more than the entire value of the planet. In short, these debts cannot be paid off and the interest alone will crush this country. When the United States cannot pay the interest on the debt, we will be in default and the system will come crashing down and we will not have just 50 million food stamp recipients rioting, it will be nearly all of us.

No president will ever let the debt crisis get out of control to where most Americans will take to the streets. Every administration would seek to control the situation before the crises hits and become a case of political and economic suicide. A government would subdue its soon-to-be rioting population before its population started hanging bankers and politicians from the nearest lamp post.

Obama has another motivation to subdue the American people before the full brunt of the public’s anger has a chance to coalesce. Obama has had five Watergate scandals in his administration. They were the Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal of harassing Tea Party members, the spying on reporters from the AP scandal, the NSA/Ed Snowden spy scandal and the public questioning new revelations about running guns to the Mexican cartels in Fast and Furious. Now Obama has a sixth scandal. It is the BLM/EPA scandal in which the Ammon Bundy/Burns, Oregon situation. Because of Ammon Bundy and his followers are exposing the heavy handed practices of the BLM trying to force as many ranchers and farmers off of their land, an increasing number of Americans are beginning to see that the government wants to control all food and food production. Slowly, America is realizing that in this land of plenty, Americans will soon be starved into submission. Millions will die. This fact is exacerbated by the fact that I recently interviewed farming experts, Ed Petrowski and Cliff Harris, about their unfolding prediction that at least 15% of the nation’s farmers and ranchers will be leaving the food growing industry. This coupled with a plunging Baltic Dry Index of under 370 means that the American people will soon face a food crisis of Biblical proportions.

When it comes to Ammon Bundy, it could be said that a rising tide lifts all boats. The Bundy standoff could become the catalyst for the coming civil disobedience of farmers and ranchers in the West. Obama cannot allow this. He will move against the American people and food seems the most likely avenue of attack.

Knowing these facts, would you not preemptively move to head off these crises with a series of false flag attacks which would provide the justification for martial law? Under martial law, Obama could thwart any legitimate challenge to the tyranny unfolding in this country. Under martial law, he could preposition assets to thwart the financial and food riots that are surely coming to America when the financial debts deliver a death blow to the economy and ultimately the banking system. MAYBE NOW, JADE HELM 15 MAKES SENSE TO YOU.

Ft. Lauderdale dissident extraction drill executed on March 27, 2015. These images should haunt all Americans.

A New Era of Federal Tyranny

With the stroke of his pen, Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his EO 13603 states:

1. e)  “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f)  “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

This unconstitutional EO is particularly disturbing in that it clearly states that the government has control over anything that is “capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…”  If you thought that you and Fido were going to get through the coming food crisis by storing and consuming dog food, think again.

How will farmers maintain the nation’s food supply when all fertilizer, their farm equipment and all of their vehicles are under the control of this sociopathic President or the next power-hungry President?

The Wide-Ranging Food Control Policies of EO 13603

The term “all food storage facilities” includes your refrigerator, your pantry and even the very food in your cabinets as well as what is on your kitchen table. In short, anywhere you keep food is now under the control of the government and can be seized and redistributed. Those who are storing food, you better find a way to hide at least a portion of your stockpile.

Have you recently been scratching your head in bewilderment as you watch on the news as the Amish have had their farms raided, raw milk producers have been jailed and the kids running lemonade stands have been shut down and ticketed? Now you know why these abuses are being perpetrated by the government in that it represents a mere conditioning process designed to get all U.S. citizens used to the idea that the government owns all food and food production. Welcome to the Hunger Games, American style.

The most clever aspect of this EO is that no Hegelian Dialectic (i.e., false flag event) is needed as a pretense to seize food and imperil survivability. Section 201(b) of the Obama EO clearly states that this EO is enforceable under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.”

The Feds Have Been Preparing for a Long Time

As far back as 2008, I can find evidence that the government was attempting to stockpile as much survival food as possible. These events prompted prominent brokers and key media members to advise the public to begin storing food as long as five years ago in anticipation of what is about ready to happen.

In 2011, FEMA issued a “Request for information” (RFI), in which they inquired about the availability for 140 million emergency meal kits with a shelf life of 36 months along with blankets. Please read the following and I defy the reader to not be concerned about long-standing pattern of this government in acquiring vast amounts of food.

Solicitation Number:

HSFEHQ-11-R-Meals

Notice Type:

Cancellation

Synopsis:

Added: Jan 20, 2011 11:54 am

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) procures and stores pre-packaged commercial meals to support readiness capability for immediate distribution to disaster survivors routinely. The purpose of this Request for Information is to identify sources of supply for meals in support of disaster relief efforts based on a catastrophic disaster event within the New Madrid Fault System for a survivor population of 7M to be utilized for the sustainment of life during a 10-day period of operations. FEMA is considering the following specifications (14M meals per day):

– Serving Size – 12 ounce (entree not to exceed 480 calorie count); – Maximum calories – 1200 and/or 1165 per meal; – Protein parameters – 29g-37g kit; – Trans Fat – 0; – Saturated Fat – 13 grams (9 calories per gram); – Total Fat – 47 grams (less than 10% calories); – Maximum sodium – 800-930 mg;

Requested Menus to include snacks (i.e. fruit mix, candy, chocolate/peanut butter squeezers, drink mix, condiments, and utensils). All meals/kits must have 36 months of remaining shelf life upon delivery. Packaging should be environmentally friendly.

– Homestyle Chicken Noodles – Potatoes – Vegetarian Pasta – Green Pepper Steak w/Rice – BBQ sauce w/Beef and diced – Chicken w/Rice and Beans – Chicken Pasta The following questions are put forward to interested parties: 1. Please specify the type of organization responding to the questions (i.e. small business, large business, industry association, etc.) If a small business, please specify all Small Business Administration socioeconomic programs under which your organization qualifies. 2. Does your organization have a product available that meets all the specifications above? If the answer is “Yes:” What is the country of origin? If the answer is “No:” (a) Can your organization produce such a product? (b) What would be the product lead time? (c) What country are the manufacturing plants located in?

3. Can your organization delivery the product to a specified location within a 24 hour period?
4. Please provide an implementation plan for critical delivery orders and delivery surge orders.
5. What states do you already have contracts in place with to provide these types of products?
6. Please detail the type of meals and quantities you can provide for each day following a disaster.
7. Please provide alternatives to the meal specifications that your organization can provide.
8. What type of delivery schedule would your organization recommend for the meals
9. Does your organization have the capabilities to deliver products directly to FEMA’s CONUS Distributions Centers
10. Can your organization track deliveries from point of origin to point of delivery?
11. What is your lead time for delivery once FEMA has placed an order?

Interested parties may also provide brochures, web links, or other literature about their cots available for the specified users (EDITOR’S NOTE: FEMA CAMPS). Responses to this RFI are not considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract.

Vendors are encouraged to ask the Government questions regarding this potential requirement. Questions must be submitted in writing to Julieann L. Phillips at julieann.phillips@dhs.gov not later than 2:00PM, 26 January 2011 to be answered. Responses to questions will be provided not later than 2:00PM, 03 February 2011. Request for Information closing date is 03 February 2011.

Contracting Office Address:

500 C Street SW Patriots Plaza — 5th Floor Washington, District of Columbia 20472

Primary Point of Contact.:

Julieann L. Phillips,

CONTRACTING OFFICER

Julieann.phillips@dhs.gov

Phone: 202-646-3234

Fax: 202.646.1765

Should this action which initially took place almost five years ago, serve as a warning for the perilous times we live in today?

I have more examples of how the Federal government is attempting to acquire as much food as possible. Last year, for example, DHS approached several emergency food vendors and were turned down by loyal Americans who said “no”.

Conclusion

FEMA says that the average American has less than 72 hours worth of food. Stalin and Hitler both used food as a weapon of mass destruction against their people. Obama is next. Please look at the following:

The Hunger Games movie promoted the high speed bullet train connecting the districts, through vast uninhabited biodiversity zones. Billions are being spent today in the pursuit of this Agenda 21 futuristic from of travel reserved solely for the elite. The BLM will see to it that that there will be no ranchers and farmers and food production by these groups will plummet to zero.

In the Hunger Games movie, this was the “Wildlands” biodiversity boundary surrounding District 12.

Welcome to the squalor of Agenda 21 and the government, on behalf of the elite will soon control all food. And when you desperately need something to eat, where will you go?

Do you see yourself in this photo?

 Credit to Common Sense

New evidence points to giant 9th planet on solar system edge...is the Planet X?

Another conspiracy theory that proves to be true....and now you can see it on google

The solar system may have a ninth planet after all.

This one is 5,000 times bigger than outcast Pluto and billions of miles farther away, say scientists who presented "good evidence" for a long-hypothesized Planet X on Wednesday.

The gas giant is thought to be almost as big as its nearest planetary neighbor Neptune, quite possibly with rings and moons. It's so distant that it would take a mind-blowing 10,000 to 20,000 years to circle the sun.

Planet 9, as the pair of California Institute of Technology researchers calls it, hasn't been spotted yet. They base their prediction on mathematical and computer modeling, and anticipate its discovery via telescope within five years or less.

The two reported their research Wednesday in the Astronomical Journal because they want people to help them look for it.

"We could have stayed quiet and quietly spent the next five years searching the skies ourselves and hoping to find it. But I would rather somebody find it sooner, than me find it later," astronomer Mike Brown told The Associated Press.

Credit to AP

RUSSIANS ADDING SIX NEW SUBS TO FLEET

The Last 16 Times This Happened There Was A Recession…

Something has just happened that has signaled a recession every single time that it has occurred since World War I.  16 times since 1919 there have been at least 8 month-over-month declines in industrial production during the preceding 12 month period, and in each of those 16 instances the U.S. economy has plunged into recession.  Now that it has happened again, will the U.S. economy beat the odds and avoid a major economic downturn?  I certainly wouldn’t count on it.  As I have written about repeatedly, there are a whole host of other numbers that are screaming that a new recession is here, and global financial markets are crumbling.  It would take a miracle of epic proportions to pull us out of this tailspin, and yet there are many people out there that are absolutely convinced that it will happen.

John Hussman is not one of them.  In his most recent weekly comment, he examined this stunning correlation between month-over-month declines in industrial production and recessions.  To me, what Hussman has presented is overwhelmingly conclusive…

Last week, following a long period of poor internals and weakening order surplus, we observed fresh declines in industrial production and retail sales. Industrial production has now also declined on a year-over-year basis. The weakness we presently observe is strongly associated with recession. The chart below (h/t Jeff Wilson) plots the cumulative number of month-over-month declines in Industrial Production during the preceding 12-month period, in data since 1919. Recessions are shaded. The current total of 10 (of a possible 12) month-over-month declines in Industrial Production has never been observed except in the context of a U.S. recession. Historically, as Dick Van Patten would say, eight is enough.

After looking at that chart, is there anyone out there that still doubts that the U.S. economy is in significant trouble?

Many estimates of U.S. GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2015 are already just a small fraction of one percent.  It would not be a surprise at all to see a negative number posted once it is all said and done.

And of course more bad news for the economy just keeps pouring in.  So far this week we have learned that the growth rate of federal withholding taxes has turned negative, Johnson & Johnson plans has announced that it is eliminating 3,000 jobs, and BP has announced that it is eliminating 4,000 jobs.

Of course it is not exactly a surprise that BP is cutting jobs.  At this point the entire energy industry is absolutely hemorrhaging workers.  As I wrote about yesterday, 130,000 good paying energy jobs have been lost in the United States since the beginning of last year.

But now we are seeing major firms outside the energy industry cutting payrolls.  Even financial giants such as Morgan Stanley are looking for ways to cut costs…

Morgan Stanley just announced fourth-quarter earnings, and it is providing detail to investors on a cost-saving plan called Project Streamline.

During a conference call, CEO James Gorman uttered a sentence that will most likely make the bank’s staff shudder.

“Too many employees based in high-cost centers are doing work that can sensibly be done in lower-cost centers,” he said.

The whole environment is changing.

When things start to get tough, big corporations start to get rid of people.  We saw this back in 2008, and it is starting to happen again right now.

And just like last time around, we are going to see millions of Americans lose their jobs during the hard years that are ahead of us.

But thankfully for the moment there is a brief lull in the action.  The financial turmoil that has gripped the planet was calmed on Tuesday when China announced that their economy grew at a rate of 6.8 percent during the fourth quarter of 2015.  This was right in line with expectations, and markets around the world responded positively to the news.

There is just one huge problem.  Everyone knows that GDP figures coming out of China are essentially meaningless.  If you believe that the Chinese economy actually grew at a 6.8 percent rate during the fourth quarter of 2015, then I have a bridge to sell you.  Virtually every other number coming out of China over the past several months tells us that the Chinese economy is shrinking, and so that 6.8 percent figure is extremely questionable at best.

Do you want to know the last time the communist Chinese admitted to having a recession?

It was in 1976.

Over the past four decades, economic growth figures have become a source of great national pride for China.  To admit that the economy is now imploding would bring great shame on the Chinese government and the nation as a whole, and so that must be avoided at all costs.

Yes, the numbers are fraudulent in the U.S. too.  According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if the U.S. was actually using honest numbers the last recession never would have technically ended.

But in China they take this to ridiculous extremes.  The Chinese economy is fueled by exports, and Chinese exports have been down on a year over year basis for six months in a row.  And the primary reason why commodity prices have been absolutely collapsing is because of the economic contraction in China.

Of course if China had released a GDP number that was honest, global markets would have crashed hard.  So their lies are making everyone else feel a bit better for the moment, and every day of relative stability that we can enjoy from here on out is something to be thankful for.

As you read this article, markets all over Asia, Europe, South America and the Middle East are already in bear market territory.  More than 30 percent of the market has been wiped out in Brazil and Hong Kong, more than 40 percent of the market has been wiped out in China and Italy, and about 50 percent of the market has been wiped out in Saudi Arabia.

We are already experiencing a major global financial crisis.

The only question remaining is how bad it will eventually become.

Let us hope for more days like this one that are relatively calm.  But I wouldn’t count on things turning around significantly any time soon, because the economic fundamentals are telling us that big trouble is ahead.

Credit to Economic Collapse

George Soros: "Europe Is On The Verge Of Collapse"

I can bet it will, because he is working on it...

The following is a revised version of an interview between George Soros and Gregor Peter Schmitz of the German magazine WirtschaftsWoche.

Gregor Peter Schmitz: When Time put German Chancellor Angela Merkel on its cover, it called her the “Chancellor of the Free World.” Do you think that is justified?

George Soros: Yes. As you know, I have been critical of the chancellor in the past and I remain very critical of her austerity policy. But after Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, she became the leader of the European Union and therefore, indirectly, of the Free World. Until then, she was a gifted politician who could read the mood of the public and cater to it. But in resisting Russian aggression, she became a leader who stuck her neck out in opposition to prevailing opinion.

She was perhaps even more farsighted when she recognized that the migration crisis had the potential to destroy the European Union, first by causing a breakdown of the Schengen system of open borders and, eventually, by undermining the common market. She took a bold initiative to change the attitude of the public. Unfortunately, the plan was not properly prepared. The crisis is far from resolved and her leadership position—not only in Europe but also in Germany and even in her own party—is under attack.

Schmitz: Merkel used to be very cautious and deliberate. People could trust her. But in the migration crisis, she acted impulsively and took a big risk. Her leadership style has changed and that makes people nervous.

Soros: That’s true, but I welcome the change. There is plenty to be nervous about. As she correctly predicted, the EU is on the verge of collapse. The Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another. This practice is popularly known as kicking the can down the road, although it would be more accurate to describe it as kicking a ball uphill so that it keeps rolling back down. The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Schmitz: To be specific, are you referring to Greece, Russia, Ukraine, the coming British referendum, and the migration crisis?

Soros: Yes. And you haven’t even mentioned the root cause of the migration crisis: the conflict in Syria. Nor have you mentioned the unfortunate effect that the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere have had on European public opinion.

Merkel correctly foresaw the potential of the migration crisis to destroy the European Union. What was a prediction has become the reality. The European Union badly needs fixing. This is a fact but it is not irreversible. And the people who can stop Merkel’s dire prediction from coming true are actually the German people. I think the Germans, under the leadership of Merkel, have achieved a position of hegemony. But they achieved it very cheaply. Normally hegemons have to look out not only for their own interests, but also for the interests of those who are under their protection. Now it’s time for Germans to decide: Do they want to accept the responsibilities and the liabilities involved in being the dominant power in Europe?

Schmitz: Would you say that Merkel’s leadership in the refugee crisis is different from her leadership in the euro crisis? Do you think she’s more willing to become a benevolent hegemon?

Soros: That would be asking too much. I have no reason to change my critical views on her leadership in the euro crisis. Europe could have used the kind of leadership she is showing now much earlier. It is unfortunate that when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, she was not willing to allow the rescue of the European banking system to be guaranteed on a Europe-wide basis because she felt that the prevailing German public opinion would be opposed to it. If she had tried to change public opinion instead of following it, the tragedy of the European Union could have been avoided.

Schmitz: But she wouldn’t have remained chancellor of Germany for ten years.

Soros: You are right. She was very good at satisfying the requirements and aspirations of a broad range of the German public. She had the support of both those who wanted to be good Europeans and those who wanted her to protect German national interest. That was no mean feat. She was reelected with an increased majority. But in the case of the migration issue, she did act on principle, and she was willing to risk her leadership position. She deserves the support of those who share her principles.

I take this very personally. I am a strong supporter of the values and principles of an open society because of my personal history, surviving the Holocaust as a Jew under the Nazi occupation of Hungary. And I believe that she shares those values because of her personal history, growing up under Communist rule in East Germany under the influence of her father, who was a pastor. That makes me her supporter although we disagree on a number of important issues.

Schmitz: You have been so involved in promoting the principles of open society and supporting democratic change in Eastern Europe. Why is there so much opposition and resentment toward refugees there?

Soros: Because the principles of an open society don’t have strong roots in that part of the world. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is promoting the principles of Hungarian and Christian identity. Combining national identity with religion is a powerful mix. And Orbán is not alone. The leader of the newly elected ruling party in Poland, Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski, is taking a similar approach. He is not as intelligent as Orbán, but he is a canny politician and he chose migration as the central issue of his campaign. Poland is one of the most ethnically and religiously homogeneous countries in Europe. A Muslim immigrant in Catholic Poland is the embodiment of the Other. Kaczy?ski was successful in painting him as the devil.

Schmitz: More broadly, how do you view the political situation in Poland and Hungary?

Soros: Although Kaczy?ski and Orbán are very different people, the regimes they intend to establish are very similar. As I have suggested, they seek to exploit a mix of ethnic and religious nationalism in order to perpetuate themselves in power. In a sense they are trying to reestablish the kind of sham democracy that prevailed in the period between the First and Second World Wars in Admiral Horthy’s Hungary and Marshal Pi?sudski’s Poland. Once in power, they are liable to capture some of the institutions of democracy that are and should be autonomous, whether the central bank or the constitutional court. Orbán has already done it; Kaczy?ski is only starting now. They will be difficult to remove.

In addition to all its other problems, Germany is going to have a Polish problem. In contrast to Hungary, Poland has been one of the most successful countries in Europe, both economically and politically. Germany needs Poland to protect it from Russia. Putin’s Russia and Kaczy?ski’s Poland are hostile to each other but they are even more hostile to the principles on which the European Union was founded.

Schmitz: What are those principles?

Soros: I have always looked at the EU as the embodiment of the principles of the open society. A quarter of a century ago, when I first became involved in the region, you had a moribund Soviet Union and an emerging European Union. And interestingly, both were adventures in international governance. The Soviet Union tried to unite proletarians of the world, and the EU tried to develop a model of regional integration based on the principles of an open society.

Schmitz: How does that compare with today?

Soros: The Soviet Union has been replaced by a resurgent Russia and the European Union has come to be dominated by the forces of nationalism. The open society that both Merkel and I believe in because of our personal histories, and that the reformers of the new Ukraine want to join because of their personal histories, does not really exist. The European Union was meant to be a voluntary association of equals but the euro crisis turned it into a relationship between debtors and creditors where the debtors have difficulties in meeting their obligations and the creditors set the conditions that the debtors have to meet. That relationship is neither voluntary nor equal. The migration crisis introduced other fissures. Therefore, the very survival of the EU is at risk.

Schmitz: That’s an interesting point, because I remember that you used to be very critical of Merkel two years ago for being too concerned with the interests of her voters and establishing a German hegemony on the cheap. Now, she has really changed course on the migration issue, and opened the door wide to Syrian refugees. That created a pull factor that in turn allowed the European authorities to develop an asylum policy with a generous target, up to a million refugees a year with the target open for several years. Refugees who are qualified to be admitted could be expected to stay where they are until their turn comes.

Soros: But we don’t have a European asylum policy. The European authorities need to accept responsibility for this. It has transformed this past year’s growing influx of refugees from a manageable problem into an acute political crisis. Each member state has selfishly focused on its own interests, often acting against the interests of others. This has precipitated panic among asylum seekers, the general public, and the authorities responsible for law and order. Asylum seekers have been the main victims. But you are right. Merkel deserves credit for making a European asylum policy possible.

The EU needs a comprehensive plan to respond to the crisis, one that reasserts effective governance over the flows of asylum seekers so that they take place in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects Europe’s capacity to absorb them. To be comprehensive, the plan has to extend beyond the borders of Europe. It is less disruptive and much less expensive for potential asylum seekers to stay in or close to their present location.

My foundation developed a six-point plan on this basis and announced it at exactly the same time as Orbán introduced his six-point plan, but the two plans were diametrically opposed to each other. Orbán’s plan was designed to protect the national borders against the asylum seekers; ours sought to protect the asylum seekers. We have been at odds ever since. Orbán accuses me of trying to destroy Hungary’s national culture by flooding the country with Muslim refugees. Paradoxically, our plan would keep qualified asylum seekers where they are currently located and provide facilities in those places; it is his policies that induce them to rush to Europe while the doors are still open.

Schmitz: Could you make your paradox a little clearer? Why would your plan prevent refugees from flooding Europe?

Soros: We advocate a common European asylum policy that would reassert control over the European rather than national borders and allow asylum seekers to reach Europe in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects the EU’s capacity to absorb them. Orbán advocates using the national borders to keep out migrants.

Schmitz: And who is winning the conflict?

Soros: In Hungary, he has won hands down. More disturbingly, he is also winning in Europe. He is challenging Merkel for the leadership of Europe. He launched his campaign at the party conference in September 2015 of the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (the sister party of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union) and he did so in cahoots with Horst Seehofer, the German party chairman. And it is a very real challenge. It attacks the values and principles on which the European Union was founded. Orbán attacks them from the inside; Putin from the outside. Both of them are trying to reverse the subordination of national sovereignty to a supranational, European order.

Putin goes even further: he wants to replace the rule of law with the rule of force. They are harking back to a bygone age. Fortunately, Merkel has taken the challenge seriously. She is fighting back and I support her not only with words but also with deeds. My foundations do not engage only in advocacy; they seek to make a positive contribution on the ground. We established a foundation in Greece, Solidarity Now, in 2013. We could clearly foresee that Greece in its impoverished state would have difficulty taking care of the large number of refugees that are stuck there.

Schmitz: Where would the money for your plan come from?

Soros: It would be impossible for the EU to finance this expenditure out of its current budget. It could, however, raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity. The burden of servicing the bonds could be equitably distributed between member states that accept refugees and those that refuse to do so or impose special restrictions. Needless to say, that is where I remain at odds with Chancellor Merkel.

Schmitz: You have retired from running your hedge fund and devote all your energies to your foundation. What are your major projects?

Soros: There are too many to enumerate. We seem to be involved in most of the burning political and social issues of the world. But I would single out the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and the Central European University (CEU) because there is a revolution going on in the social sciences and I am deeply involved both personally and through my foundations. With the help of the natural sciences, mankind has gained control over the forces of nature but our ability to govern ourselves has not kept pace with the achievements of natural science. We have the capacity to destroy our civilization and we are well on the way to doing so.

Schmitz: You paint a bleak picture of our future.

Soros: But it is a biased view and deliberately so. Recognizing a problem is an invitation to do something about it. That is the main lesson I learned from the formative experience of my life, in 1944, when the Nazis occupied Hungary. I might not have survived if my father hadn’t secured false identification papers for his family (and many others). He taught me that it’s much better to face harsh reality than to close your eyes to it. Once you are aware of the dangers, your chances of survival are much better if you take some risks than if you meekly follow the crowd. That is why I trained myself to look at the dark side. It has served me well in the financial markets and it is guiding me now in my political philanthropy. As long as I can find a winning strategy, however tenuous, I don’t give up. In danger lies opportunity. It’s always darkest before dawn.

Schmitz: What’s your winning strategy for Greece?

Soros: Well, I don’t have one. Greece was mishandled from the beginning. When the Greek crisis originally surfaced toward the end of 2009, the EU, led by Germany, came to the rescue, but it charged punitive interest rates for the loans it offered. That is what made the Greek national debt unsustainable. And it repeated the same mistake in the recent negotiations. The EU wanted to punish Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and especially his former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis at the same time as it had no choice but to avoid a Greek default. Consequently, the EU imposed conditions that will push Greece into deeper depression.

Schmitz: Is Greece an interesting country for private investors?

Soros: Not as long as it is part of the eurozone. With the euro, the country is unlikely ever to flourish because the exchange rate is too high for it to be competitive.

Schmitz: How concerned are you that in the middle of all these crises an important EU member state such as the UK is considering leaving the European Union?

Soros: Very. I am convinced that Britain should stay in Europe not only for economic but even more for political reasons. An EU without the UK would be a much weaker union.

Schmitz: But surveys show a British majority for a Brexit, or British exit from the EU.

Soros: The campaign for the Brexit has deliberately misled the public.Currently, Britain has the best of all possible deals with Europe. It has access to the common market where nearly half of UK exports go while it is not weighed down by the burden of having joined the eurozone.

Schmitz: Why is the British business community not more vocal about the disadvantages of a Brexit?

Soros: The managements of the multinational corporations that have built up their manufacturing capacity in Britain as a springboard into the common market are reluctant to say that they oppose a Brexit publicly because they don’t want to get embroiled in a political debate where their customers have divergent views. But ask them privately, as I did, and they will readily confirm it.

The Brexit campaign has tried to convince the British public that it is safer to stay out of the common market than to be part of it. The campaign had the field to itself because the government wanted to give the impression that it is holding out for the best deal.

Schmitz: For a long time, Europe—and the world—could count on China as a growth and credit engine.

Soros: China is still historically the most important country. It still has very large accumulated foreign currency reserves.

Schmitz: And that will shelter the country?

Soros: China is exhausting these reserves very rapidly. It also has an incredibly large reservoir of trust from the Chinese population: many people may not understand how the Chinese regime actually works, but they believe that a regime that has managed to overcome so many problems knows what it is doing. But the reservoir of trust is also being exhausted at a remarkably fast rate because the leadership has made many mistakes. President Xi Jinping can carry on with his current policies for another three years or so, but during that time, China will exert a negative influence on the rest of the world by reinforcing the deflationary tendencies that are already prevalent. China is responsible for a larger share of the world economy than ever before and the problems it faces have never been more intractable.

Schmitz: Can President Xi rise to the challenge?

Soros: There is a fundamental flaw in Xi’s approach. He has taken direct control of the economy and of security. If he were to succeed in a market-oriented solution it would be much better for the world and for China. But you cannot have a market solution without some political changes. You cannot fight corruption without independent media. And that’s one thing that Xi is not willing to allow. On that point he is closer to Putin’s Russia than to our ideal of an open society.

Schmitz: What is your assessment of the situation in Ukraine?

Soros: Ukraine has done something almost unbelievable in surviving for two years while facing so many enemies. But it needs a lot more support from outside because it’s exhausted. By putting Ukraine on a short financial leash, Europe is repeating the mistake it has made in Greece. The old Ukraine had much in common with the old Greece—it was dominated by oligarchs and the civil service was used by people who were exploiting their position rather than serving the people. But there’s a new Ukraine that wants to be the opposite of the old Ukraine. The Rada has recently passed a budget for 2016 that meets the conditions imposed by the IMF. Now is the time to hold out the prospect of the additional financial assistance that the new Ukraine needs to carry out radical reforms. That would enable the country not only to survive but to flourish and become an attractive investment destination. Turning the new Ukraine back into the old Ukraine would be a fatal mistake because the new Ukraine is one of the most valuable assets that Europe has, both for resisting Russian aggression and for recapturing the spirit of solidarity that characterized the European Union in its early days.

Schmitz: Many criticize US President Barack Obama for being too weak toward Russia.

Soros: Rightly so. Putin is a supreme tactician who entered the Syrian conflict because he saw an opportunity to improve Russia’s standing in the world. He was ready to keep pushing until he encountered serious resistance. President Obama should have challenged him earlier. If Obama had declared a no-fly zone over Syria when Russia started to supply military equipment on a large scale, Russia would have been obliged to respect it. But Obama was eager to avoid any chance of a direct military confrontation with Russia. So Russia installed antiaircraft missiles and the US had to share control of the skies over Syria with Russia. You could almost say that by shooting down a Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdo?an did Obama a favor. Putin had to recognize that his military adventure had run into serious opposition and he now seems ready for a political solution. That is promising.

There is also ISIS and the terrorist attacks that threaten to undermine the values and principles of our civilization. The terrorists want to convince Muslim youth that there is no alternative to terrorism, and if we listen to the likes of Donald Trump they will succeed.

Schmitz: I can’t help but ask. Do you know Trump?

Soros: Going back many years Donald Trump wanted me to be the lead tenant in one of his early buildings. He said: “I want you to come into the building. You name your price.” My answer was, “I’m afraid I can’t afford it.” And I turned him down.

Credit to Zero Hedge