Economist 2016 Cover Analysis Essay
SPECIAL REPORT: Economist Magazine Shows Roota Pulling The PlugBix Weir
I have always asserted that in the end of this global chess game of manipulation of the gold and silver markets, that the Road to Roota Theory would be the closest thing to the actual TRUTH about the reasons, strategies and tools used to run the fiat monetary system. In the beginning (Jan ) everyone said I was crazy. There was no way that the Federal Reserve was creating more and more unbacked fiat money on purpose to destroy the monetary system and those who are in charge of it behind the scenes.
All my doubters have long since gone silent as we get closer and closer to the END of this game.
This analysis of the latest Economist Magazine Cover is constructed as seen from the Road to Roota angle so it's important that you brush up on what the Road to Roota Theory is all about and what Alan Greenspan's overall agenda is. Here are the articles that you should be familiar with
The Road to Roota Theory
Greenspan's Golden Secret
Greenspan's Golden Testimony
Now let's move onto the latest cover on the Economist's Annual Magazine called "The World In ".
A few facts you should be aware of:
- This is not their weekly Economist Magazine publication but rather a Special Edition they do before the beginning of each new year.
- This is the 30th year it is being published.
- Last year's publication caused quite a controversy as it seems to have predicted the Paris Terrorists Attacks thus making people think it was pre-planned and orchestrated by a group other than the identified terrorists.(which of course it was!)
- Like the artwork, the cover is only represented partially as reproduced on the cover. Only the left side of both full pictures were put on the covers with the full artwork reproduced inside the magazine.
- In both years it seems the more controversial items are placed on the right side of the picture and not presented on the cover of the magazine.
In my analysis I will be discussing items that are relevant to the Road to Roota Theory and leaving out other items and issues that they are clearly trying to present a message but not one that is too relevant to the Road to Roota Theory. Time permitting I will release a second analysis where I discuss other issues.
Above is the cover of the magazine that you will see sold to the public with the left side of the artwork only presented. Below is the full piece that can be found on page 15 of the magazine
CRAZY STUFF!! There is so much hidden meaning here it's hard to know where to start. For the purpose of this article I will start at the heart of the Road to Roota Theory - that Alan Greenspan IS Roota and there he is on the right side - the "Conspiracy Side" of the artwork
Here's my take on what is being said in this section and where it will lead us in
- First of all, out of all the people pictured he is one of the few cartooned people and in color.
- Judging by his facial expression he's clearly not happy with something in this picture OR, and more likely, the BAD GUYS are not happy with what he has done and portrayed him as a bitter fading old man. Could go either way.
- Below him are 4 magazines with dates corresponding to significant years in his attempts at taking down the system.
1) - Just a few months after his appointment as the Fed Chair the market suffered one of the worst crashes in history "The Crash of " Many analysts found that the ultimate cause of crash was triggered by automatic stop loss orders that were triggered in the computer trading models that had just been introduced to the markets. Yes, Greenspan did trigger the crash with his computer programs.
2) - In Greenspan's first attempts at flooding the system with "easy money" he kept lowering interest rates until they rates bottomed in late giving way to the Bond Collapse in Greenspan even suggested selling gold on May 18, Fed Meeting to "break the thermometer"
Greenspan Suggested Gold Price Suppression in
"I have one other issue I'd like to throw on the table. I hesitate to do it, but let me tell you some of the issues that are involved here. If we are dealing with psychology, then the thermometers one uses to measure it have an effect. I was raising the question on the side with Governor Mullins of what would happen if the Treasury sold a little gold in this market. There's an interesting question here because if the gold price broke in that context, the thermometer would not be just a measuring tool. It would basically affect the underlying psychology."
3) - Again Greenspan's easy monetary policies greatly contributed to the MASSIVE dot-com bubble that blew up in March of Greenspan's response was to even further lower interest rates and flood the system with even more money.
"The most notable actions taken during Greenspan's tenure as chairman began in He raised interest rates several times in which was likely this cause of the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
4) - Greenspan officially retired as Fed Chairman in and had President Bush appoint Ben Bernanke to the position who promised to flood the system with even more money.
Those are the 4 dates on the magazines but it is the date right above these magazines that is the most important - It was in that the entire system almost shut down. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had to literally beg Congress for $B to bailout the banks. Many attributed the crash to the lack of derivative regulations that Greenspan had fought forand they were right. The other contributor was the housing bubble that Greenspan created by keeping interest rates too low for too long (note: in Greenspan's missing graduate thesis an entire section was dedicated to blowing up a housing bubble and then having it pop).
Looking At Greenspan's Long Lost Thesis
"We were tickled to find that the work's introduction includes a discussion of soaring housing prices and their effect on consumer spending; it even anticipates a bursting housing bubble. Writes Greenspan: "There is no perpetual motion machine which generates an ever-rising path for the prices of homes."
He was trying to blow the bubble so big that there was no other choice but to crash everything.
Unfortunately, the banksers won that fight and were given a bailout in to save the system. In retrospect, most people in the United States have come to believe this was huge mistake as the banksters seem to have gotten away with everything as not one of them went to jail.
Now look at that "slot machine" in front of Greenspan as represented on the full artwork. It is clearly being turned once again as the lever is 1/2 way down and the 8 is clearly shifting down. I'm not sure but the 3rd digit looks like an apple with a bite out of itcould it represent New York City (the Big Apple) where Wall Street takes the brunt of a large financial meltdown?
My final analysis is that the slot machine is a representation of Greenspan's computer programs and the take down of the banking system is already in progress only to culminate in There is no other reason to put Alan Greenspan in the middle of this Illuminati-ish artwork as Greenspan has been out of the mainstream for 10 years and he is NOT even talked about in the magazine articles in the hard copy or in the digital copies. Not a word where as most of the rest of the people (at least on the left side of the artwork) are discussed and addressed in the publication.
There are those who read the slot machine as turning to which is the planned year for the Bad Guys to implement their "One World Currency" according to the Economist Cover but I'm not too sure as they clearly tried to block out the "1" before the 8. I guess time will tell.
And the baby reaching for the world below it allperfect analogy of how the Bad Guys believe that the people CANNOT take care of themselves. They believe themselves to be our parents that will make all the large decisions for the child.
MY TAKE: WE ARE NOT CHILDREN ANYMORE AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE OUR FREE WILL TO CONSTRUCT OUR OWN FUTURE!
Now let's take a look at some of the other potential meanings and symbols in this magazine. I put together a collage of pictures that I got from the specific articles in the magazine as they are easier to see then the small representations on the large picture.
Flying Cell Phone - At first I had no idea what this was but I found a better picture inside the magazine in an article about peer-to-peer transactions growing rapidly in Sounds GREAT for the Price of Bitcoin if you ask me as the phone is clearly moving upward at great speed with a Superman cape!! There is even an article written by "The Wicked Witch" Blythe Masters touting the technology - don't freak out. She shouldn't scare anyone anymore as she turned down a huge job at Barclay's just to get in the crypto gamebut let's still keep a close eye on her as she may be going to jail after the crash!
Hippee on a Bike - I thought there was a lot here but upon further inspection I think it's just another example of a peer-to-peer wallet in use. Or maybe a warning to anyone trying to use peer-to-peer for illegal purposes like drugs. The message is:
"LDL" = Long Distance Lover
"VIENMO" = Payment sharing program
On the phone it says "DUMB PHONE" and there is a skull on his bag.
Not going to read too much into it here as it was on the left side of the artwork.
Same goes for the next two pictures (artificial reality glasses and the brains in a jar) as they are related to the articles in the magazine and on the left side of the artwork.
The Gold Coin on a Parachute - Here we have an obvious but HUGE message being sent for what's about to happen in At first I thought it was a random gold coin attached to a fiat money parachute but upon closer inspection it is a Gold Euro Coin attached to a Paper Euro Parachute which tells me there is some kind of Gold Backing going to be placed on the current unbacked Euro. That's big stuff as the Euro is clearly struggling today but if they did some kind of Gold backing then it would instantly become the strongest currency on EARTH
And that would totally and completely DEVALUE the unbacked US Dollar!
Will it happen? Who knows but it is one of the many things on the table for
And what about this
On the cover it is Angela Merkel front and center wearing a GOLD SHIRT and Germany holds the second largest gold hoard in the world behind the USA!! Will Germany try to keep the Euro alive by backing it in some way with their gold?(with parachute strings attached?) Also look at the huge chunk of gold represented in the picture above! Will all the hidden gold come into mainstream knowledge in ?
Maybe this is what Obama's Staff was freaking out about when Germany wanted it's gold back! Watch Obama and Larry Summers kick the press out of the Oval Office so they can beg for more time( into the segment)
Here was my original analysis
Gold Panic in the Oval Office
Panic in the White House - Part2
Time will tell what happens next.
A Euro Gold backing would be a HUGE move and send (purposefully) the US Dollar tumbling, gold skyrocketing(taking silver along for the ride) and set off the Derivative "Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction" for any trader long the Dollar and short the Euro in !!!
WAIT! SPEAKING OF SILVER
Don't know what to make of this sign but it is the only silver object in the entire picture. Could it actually say
"FREEDOM FOR SILVER!"
I may just be me reading something I WANT to see into the picturebut maybe not. Sure looks to me like Chris Duane is holding up that sign! :)
That's all I have for now but obviously there is much, much more to this cover and I will be refining this article with updates throughout the new year.
Things to think about:
1) Clearly Hillery Clinton is the "Bad Guys" choice for US President as she is the only candidate in the picture.(note the gold on her earring as she is hiding BILLIONS in secret funds off shore!)
2) Why is Bill Clinton featured so prominently on the artwork and in color. Clearly something is planned for Bill to come out of the shadowswhich is never a good thing!
3) All the people on the left of the picture have clear reasons for being there as the articles in the magazine addressing them in - the people on the right are ALL there for symbolic reasons.
and there are a million more mysteries to solve in this photo!
Have fun trying to figure out why they are there. I will post Part 2 when I get more things figured out. Send me your guesses at email@example.com
BEFORE I FINISH THERE IS ONE MORE THING THAT DOES NOT LOOK GOOD FOR OUR BATTLES GOING FORWARD
Look what I found on the inside of the magazine
So much for a peaceful transition.
May the Road you choose be the Right Road.
PS - If that picture of the flying cell phone got you excited about getting involved with bitcoin just click on the link below and we will both get 10% more BTC with your first $ purchase. What are you waiting for??
THE best modern parable of progress was, aptly, ahead of its time. In Imre Madach published “The Tragedy of Man”, a “Paradise Lost” for the industrial age. The verse drama, still a cornerstone of Hungarian literature, describes how Adam is cast out of the Garden with Eve, renounces God and determines to recreate Eden through his own efforts. “My God is me,” he boasts, “whatever I regain is mine by right. This is the source of all my strength and pride.”
Adam gets the chance to see how much of Eden he will “regain”. He starts in Ancient Egypt and travels in time through 11 tableaux, ending in the icebound twilight of humanity. It is a cautionary tale. Adam glories in the Egyptian pyramids, but he discovers that they are built on the misery of slaves. So he rejects slavery and instead advances to Greek democracy. But when the Athenians condemn a hero, much as they condemned Socrates, Adam forsakes democracy and moves on to harmless, worldly pleasure. Sated and miserable in hedonistic Rome, he looks to the chivalry of the knights crusader. Yet each new reforming principle crumbles before him. Adam replaces 17th-century Prague's courtly hypocrisy with the rights of man. When equality curdles into Terror under Robespierre, he embraces individual liberty—which is in turn corrupted on the money-grabbing streets of Georgian London. In the future a scientific Utopia has Michelangelo making chair-legs and Plato herding cows, because art and philosophy have no utility. At the end of time, having encountered the savage man who has no guiding principle except violence, Adam is downcast—and understandably so. Suicidal, he pleads with Lucifer: “Let me see no more of my harsh fate: this useless struggle.”
Things today are not quite that bad. But Madach's 19th-century verse contains an insight that belongs slap bang in the 21st. In the rich world the idea of progress has become impoverished. Through complacency and bitter experience, the scope of progress has narrowed. The popular view is that, although technology and GDP advance, morals and society are treading water or, depending on your choice of newspaper, sinking back into decadence and barbarism. On the left of politics these days, “progress” comes with a pair of ironic quotation marks attached; on the right, “progressive” is a term of abuse.
It was not always like that. There has long been a tension between seeking perfection in life or in the afterlife. Optimists in the Enlightenment and the 19th century came to believe that the mass of humanity could one day lead happy and worthy lives here on Earth. Like Madach's Adam, they were bursting with ideas for how the world might become a better place.
Some thought God would bring about the New Jerusalem, others looked to history or evolution. Some thought people would improve if left to themselves, others thought they should be forced to be free; some believed in the nation, others in the end of nations; some wanted a perfect language, others universal education; some put their hope in science, others in commerce; some had faith in wise legislation, others in anarchy. Intellectual life was teeming with grand ideas. For most people, the question was not whether progress would happen, but how.
The idea of progress forms the backdrop to a society. In the extreme, without the possibility of progress of any sort, your gain is someone else's loss. If human behaviour is unreformable, social policy can only ever be about trying to cage the ape within. Society must in principle be able to move towards its ideals, such as equality and freedom, or they are no more than cant and self-delusion. So it matters if people lose their faith in progress. And it is worth thinking about how to restore it.
Cain and cant
By now, some of you will hardly be able to contain your protests. Surely the evidence of progress is all around us? That is the case put forward in “It's Getting Better All the Time”, by the late Julian Simon and Stephen Moore then at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank in Washington, DC. Over almost pages they show how vastly everyday life has improved in every way.
For aeons people lived to the age of just 25 or 30 and most parents could expect to mourn at least one of their children. Today people live to 65 and, in countries such as Japan and Canada, over 80; outside Africa, a child's death is mercifully rare. Global average income was for centuries about $ a year; a typical inhabitant of one of the world's richer countries now earns that much in a day. In the Middle Ages about one in ten Europeans could read; today, with a few exceptions, such as India and parts of Africa, the global rate is comfortably above eight out of ten. In much of the world, ordinary men and women can vote and find work, regardless of their race. In large parts of it they can think and say what they choose. If they fall ill, they will be treated. If they are innocent, they will generally walk free.
It is good to go up in the world, but much less so if everyone around you is going up in it too
It is an impressive list—even if you factor in some formidably depressing data. (In the gently dissenting foreword to her husband's book Simon's widow quotes statistics claiming that, outside warfare, 20th-century governments murdered % of their people, through needless famine, labour camps, genocide and other crimes. That compares with % in the 19th century and % in the 17th.) Mr Moore and Simon show that health and wealth have never been so abundant. And for the part of humanity that is even now shedding poverty, many gains still lie ahead.
The trouble is that a belief in progress is more than just a branch of accounting. The books are never closed. Wouldn't nuclear war or environmental catastrophe tip the balance into the red? And the accounts are full of blank columns. How does the unknown book-keeper reconcile such unknowable quantities as happiness and fulfilment across the ages? As Adam traverses history, he sees material progress combined with spiritual decline.
Even if you can show how miserable the past was, the belief in progress is about the future. People born in the rich world today think they are due a modicum of health, prosperity and equality. They advance against that standard, rather than the pestilence, beggary and injustice of serfdom. That's progress.
Every day, in every way…
The idea of progress has a long history, but it started to flower in the 17th century. Enlightenment thinkers believed that man emancipated by reason would rise to ever greater heights of achievement. The many manifestations of his humanity would be the engines of progress: language, community, science, commerce, moral sensibility and government. Unfortunately, many of those engines have failed.
Some supposed sources of progress now appear almost quaint. Take language: many 18th-century thinkers believed that superstitions and past errors were imprinted in words. “Hysteria”, for example, comes from the Greek for “womb”, on the mistaken idea that panic was a seizure of the uterus. Purge the language of rotten thinking, they believed, and truth and reason would prevail at last. The impulse survives, much diminished, in the vocabulary of political correctness. But these days few people outside North Korea believe in language as an agent of social change.
Every time someone tells you to “be realistic” they are asking you to compromise your ideals
Other sources of progress are clothed in tragedy. The Germanic thought that individual progress should be subsumed into the shared destiny of a nation, or volk, is fatally associated with Hitler. Whenever nationalism becomes the chief organising principle of society, state violence is not far behind. Likewise, in Soviet Russia and Communist China unspeakable crimes were committed by the ruling elite in the pursuit of progress, rather as they had been in the name of God in earlier centuries. As John Passmore, an Australian philosopher, wrote: “men have sought to demonstrate their love of God by loving nothing at all and their love for humanity by loving nobody whatsoever.”
The 20th century was seduced by the idea that humans will advance as part of a collective and that the enlightened few have the right—the duty even—to impose progress on the benighted masses whether they choose it or not. The blood of millions and the fall of the Berlin Wall, 20 years ago this year, showed how much the people beg to differ. Coercion will always have its attractions for those able to do the coercing, but, as a source of enlightened progress, the subjugation of the individual in the interests of the community has lost much of its appeal.
Instead the modern age has belonged to material progress and its predominant source has been science. Yet nestling amid the quarks and transistors and the nucleic acids and nanotubes, there is a question. Science confers huge power to change the world. Can people be trusted to harness it for good?
The ancients thought not. Warnings that curiosity can be destructive stretch back to the very beginning of civilisation. As Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, so inquisitive Pandora, the first woman in Greek mythology, peered into the jar and released all the world's evils.
Modern science is full of examples of technologies that can be used for ill as well as good. Think of nuclear power—and of nuclear weapons; of biotechnology—and of biological contamination. Or think, less apocalyptically, of information technology and of electronic surveillance. History is full of useful technologies that have done harm, intentionally or not. Electricity is a modern wonder, but power stations have burnt too much CO2-producing coal. The internet has spread knowledge and understanding, but it has also spread crime and pornography. German chemistry produced aspirin and fertiliser, but it also filled Nazi gas chambers with Cyclon B.
The point is not that science is harmful, but that progress in science does not map tidily onto progress for humanity. In an official British survey of public attitudes to science in , just over 80% of those asked said they were “amazed by the achievements of science”. However, only 46% thought that “the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect”.
From the perspective of human progress, science needs governing. Scientific progress needs to be hitched to what you might call “moral progress”. It can yield untold benefits, but only if people use it wisely. They need to understand how to stop science from being abused. And to do that they must look outside science to the way people behave.
…I am getting richer and richer
It is a similar story with economic growth, the other source of material progress. The 18th century was optimistic that business could bring prosperity; and that prosperity, in its turn, could bring enlightenment. Business has more than lived up to the first half of that promise. As Joseph Schumpeter famously observed, silk stockings were once only for queens, but capitalism has given them to factory girls. And, as Mr Moore and Simon argue, prosperity has brought its share of enlightenment.
The Economist puts more faith in business than most. Yet even the stolidest defenders of capitalism would, by and large, agree that its tendency to form cartels, shuffle off the costs of pollution and collapse under the weight of its own financial inventiveness needs to be constrained by laws designed to channel its energy to the general good. Business needs governing, just as science does.
Nor does economic progress broadly defined correspond to human progress any more precisely than does scientific progress. GDP does not measure welfare; and wealth does not equal happiness. Rich countries are, by and large, happier than poor ones; but among developed-world countries, there is only a weak correlation between happiness and GDP. And, although wealth has been soaring over the past half a century, happiness, measured by national surveys, has hardly budged.
That is probably largely because of status-consciousness. It is good to go up in the world, but much less so if everyone around you is going up in it too. Once they have filled their bellies and put a roof over their heads, people want more of what Fred Hirsch, an economist who worked on this newspaper in the s and s, called “positional goods”. Only one person can be the richest tycoon. Not everyone can own a Matisse or a flat in Mayfair. As wealth grows, the competition for such status symbols only becomes more intense.
And it is not just that material progress does not seem to be delivering the emotional goods. People also fear that mankind is failing to manage it properly—with the result that, in important ways, their children may not be better off than they are. The forests are disappearing; the ice is melting; social bonds are crumbling; privacy is eroding; life is becoming a dismal slog in an ugly world.
All this scepticism, and more, is on display in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “Brave New World”, the two great British dystopian novels of the 20th century. In them George Orwell and Aldous Huxley systematically subvert each of the Enlightenment's engines of progress. Language—Orwell's Newspeak—is used to control people's thought. The individuals living on Airstrip One are dissolved by perpetual war into a single downtrodden “nation”. In both books the elite uses power to oppress, not enlighten. Science in Huxley's London has become monstrous—babies raised in vitro in hatcheries are chemically stunted; and the people are maintained in a state of drug-induced tranquillity. And in the year of our Ford , Huxley's world rulers require enthusiastic consumption to keep the factories busy and the people docile. Wherever the Enlightenment saw scope for human nature to improve, Orwell and Huxley warned that it could be debased by conditioning, propaganda and mind-control.
The question is why neither Orwell's nor Huxley's nightmares have come to life. And the answer depends on the last pair of engines of progress: moral sensibility in its widest sense, and the institutions that make up what today is known as “governance”. These broadly liberal forces offer hope for a better future—more, indeed, than you may think.
The junior partner is governance—not an oppressive Leviathan, but a democratic system of laws and social institutions. Right and left have much cause to criticise government. For the right, as Ronald Reagan famously said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” For the left, government has failed to tame the cruelty of markets and lift the poor out of their misery. From their different perspectives, both sides complain that government regulation is often costly and ineffectual, and that many decades of social welfare have failed to get to grips with an underclass.
Yet even if government has scaled back its ambitions from the heights of the post-war welfare state, even if it is often inefficient and self-serving, it also embodies moral progress. That is the significance of the assertion, in the American Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. It is the significance of laws guaranteeing free speech, universal suffrage, and equality before the law. And it is the significance of courts that can hold states to account when they, inevitably, fail to match the standards that they have set for themselves.
Such values are the institutional face of the fundamental engine of progress—“moral sensibility”. The very idea probably sounds quaint and old-fashioned, but it is the subject of a powerful recent book by Susan Neiman, an American philosopher living in Germany. People often shy away from a moral view of the world, if only because moral certitude reeks of intolerance and bigotry. As one sociologist has said “don't be judgmental” has become the 11th commandment.
But Ms Neiman thinks that people yearn for a sense of moral purpose. In a world preoccupied with consumerism and petty self-interest, that gives life dignity. People want to determine how the world works, not always to be determined by it. It means that people's behaviour should be shaped not by who is most powerful, or by who stands to lose and gain, but by what is right despite the costs. Moral sensibility is why people will suffer for their beliefs, and why acts of principled self-sacrifice are so powerful.
People can distinguish between what is and what ought to be. Torture was once common in Europe's market squares. It is now unacceptable even when the world's most powerful nation wears the interrogator's mask. Race was once a bar to the clubs and drawing-rooms of respectable society. Now a black man is in the White House.
There are no guarantees that the gap between is and ought can be closed. Every time someone tells you to “be realistic” they are asking you to compromise your ideals. Ms Neiman acknowledges that your ideals will never be met completely. But sometimes, however imperfectly, you can make progress. It is as if you are moving towards an unattainable horizon. “Human dignity”, she writes, “requires the love of ideals for their own sake, but nothing requires that the love will be requited.”
Striving, not strife
At the end of Madach's poem, Adam is about to throw himself off a cliff in despair, when he glimpses redemption. First Eve draws near to tell him that she is to have a child. Then God comes and gently tells Adam that he is wrong to try to reckon his accomplishments on a cosmic scale. “For if you saw your transient, earthly life set in dimensions of eternity, there wouldn't be any virtue in endurance. Or if you saw your spirit drench the dust, where could you find incentive for your efforts?” All God asks of man is to strive for progress, nothing more. “It is human virtues I want,” He says, “human greatness.”
Ms Neiman asks people to reject the false choice between Utopia and degeneracy. Moral progress, she writes, is neither guaranteed nor is it hopeless. Instead, it is up to us.
This article appeared in the Christmas Specials section of the print edition