It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Retikx
Im confused. Should i be happy about this? Should big red lights and bells be going off?! Does this mean good things are coming for the general populace. Or does this all mean that the worst possible things imaginable are on the horizon.
Should i be investing? Or should i be stocking up my ammo and preparing for really hard times.
Originally posted by ukWolf
I too like this series of stories Fulford/Wilcock write about and have this little bit too add;
On the 10th Dec 2011 a writer at Mail Online wrote:
"Last week, I expressed puzzlement that Lord James (Con) had pulled out of a parliamentary debate. I now gather he was leaned on by the authorities.
He was going to make claims about allegedly secret bank accounts in Britain containing vast sums of U.S. money. He is to meet the Attorney-General about the matter next Tuesday"
On 16th Jan, here: tdarkcabal.blogspot.com...
"We suggest everyone keep an eye and ear on the inner sanctums of Great Britain as the exposure is delivered to that great sovereign body"
On 18th Jan 2012 - tdarkcabal.blogspot.com...
"Remember to keep a close eye and ear on the inner sanctums of Great Britain as the exposure is delivered to that great Sovereign body"
Lord James speech was 16th Feb 2012
also I read this story elsewhere
Headline: Cartel Dumps 102.5 Million Ounces of Paper Silver in 7 Minutes, Yet RAID FAILS!
"That's 20,500 paper silver contracts or 102,500,000 ounces of paper silver suddenly dumped on the market in a span of 7 minutes!
Now here's where the collective Myocardial Infarction comes in among JPM execs:
After dumping 102.5 million ounces of paper shorts on silver in 7 minutes, silver fails to collapse into a waterfall decline, and STAGES AN OUTSIDE REVERSAL TO CLOSE THE GLOBEX SESSION BACK ABOVE $35.50!!!"
Someone worked against the massive paper trades, but who and why ?
edit on 28-2-2012 by ukWolf because: Insert Link
Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
I've read in a few places on ATS that this is connected with a serious SHTF situation and that after resignations, some people have retreated to their bunkers. So I pose this question: If millions are about to die, why does it matter whether or not they're the sitting CEO or not? or If a super serious economic melt down is coming, why would they be retreating to bunkers?
I would be interested to see the evidence that exists to substantiate these claims that these individuals who have resigned have retreated to bunkers. Is there any?
Who said we are about to die?
Are we now going to take this thread into the realm of absurdity?
Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by proximo
Most people are employed by companies and people that actually produce something tangible.
Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by omarm1984
I truly doubt that 75 top tier CEO's quitting in a span of two weeks is Normal. The end of February is not the end of a fiscal quarter. That would be the end of March.
Originally posted by Hr2burn
Didn't something very similar happen with higher level police officers some 2 or 3 years back. That never really amounted to much of anything...
A question though, if you prepare with about everything you could possible need, and say 3 months into it you are no longer able to pay your mortgage (or worse, your rent). What could be done with what I would assume would be tens of millions of people/families?
Originally posted by bellagirl
dont know if you have this one yet
mark arbib...the labor government power broker and so called "king maker" made a shock resignation 2 days ago.
here is where it gets really interesting. he has been outed in wikileaks.
let me know if you had this one. big news here in australia.
The WikiLeaks’ cables established a growing concern among US officials at Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s practice of launching important diplomatic initiatives without first securing their approval. These initiatives included the proposed Asia Pacific Community, which Rudd regarded as a potential means for mediating between US and Chinese strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific. This orientation, however, cut across the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia, which focussed not on accommodating China’s rising diplomatic and strategic influence, but on aggressively countering it, including through a heightened military presence in the region. At the same time as dissatisfaction with Rudd escalated, Gillard curried favour with the US and Israel. One diplomatic cable dispatched in mid-2008 notably wondered if Gillard had suddenly become more enthusiastic for US operations or if her dealings with embassy officials merely reflected “an understanding of what she needs to do to become leader of the ALP.” The June 2010 coup laid bare the extent to which the US state is involved in every aspect of Australian political life. It marked only the latest episode of American interference, following the CIA’s involvement in the destabilisation campaign against Gough Whitlam’s Labor government in 1975,which culminated in the infamous Canberra Coup. The axing of Rudd also demonstrated the hollowed out and rotten character of the Labor Party apparatus. It provided a glimpse of how power is really wielded, behind the facade of parliamentary democracy, and made clear the Australian ruling elite’s willingness to resort to extra-parliamentary methods of rule. For all these reasons, discussion of the real issues involved in the coup remains entirely off-limits in political and media circles. Many questions remain about Arbib’s statements yesterday. One possibility is that he was told by the US embassy that his services within the Australian Labor government were no longer required, because he was too closely associated with the political stench of the coup and because too much detail about his relationship with Washington had been publicly revealed. Prime Minister Julia Gillard, addressing journalists after beating Rudd in the leadership ballot by 71 votes to 31, emphasised that there should be no further discussion on how she was installed. “I have had the opportunity to explain the circumstances of 2010 and how I became prime minister,” she declared. “I accept that I should have explained that at the time. I have now had the opportunity to do so, but having taken that opportunity, I believe the discussions about 2010 should now be at an end, our focus is on 2012 and all the years that lie beyond for the Australian nation.” According to Gillard, her recent bitter denunciations of Rudd’s leadership—that it was chaotic, dysfunctional and caused the government to become “paralysed”—constitutes an explanation of the unprecedented events of June 2010. This is an attempt to rewrite history. Gillard’s account, moreover, is absurd on its face. Re-published from: www.wsws.org... StumbleUpon Digg it Furl Yahoo! MyWeb Newsvine Facebook Twitter MySpace Delicious Kwoff Comment On This Story Print Return advertisementWestend Community House advertisementJPDavies Pharmacy
Originally posted by jonthedit
It's about time! I can't wait for a NWO to begin!