The current “deal” with Iran over its nuclear program is better defined as policy capitulation. To be viable, the deal must have teeth and achieve the endstate desired by the United States. The current “deal” with Iran is neither and ultimately does not stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, a renegotiation of the treaty is necessary to avoid war. However, war may still be the inevitable result of either doing nothing or trying to force a renegotiation the Iranians are unwilling to engage in. If Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, there will be a major war irrespective of whether or not the US wants it. Further, if Iran feels cornered, it may simply refuse to renegotiate anything and regionally retaliate against US pressure leading to a military engagement. Iran isn’t a paper tiger and has the ability cause the US significant problems if we do drive a hard bargain. Donald Trump will need to understand this in finite detail or the US will pay in blood and treasure abroad and at home. Read more
Archive for economic collapse
The following summary of recent world events is decidedly negative. This is not due to overt pessimism as much as the facts are just plain bad. In fact, I didn’t even include events like the effects of Hurricane Mathew, the attack on our warship off the coast of Yemen, and the assassination of more police around the US. The world is not getting any safer and indicators are all pointing to things worsening as we move into late fall and winter. The following are major events you should be taking note of with short comments.
- Situation in Syria: Syrian government forces backed by Iran and Russia continue to pound Aleppo and are nearing a strategic breakthrough. All actors in Syria recognize that if Assad is able to recapture Aleppo from the Islamic extremists it will be the beginning of the end for Washington’s terrorist proxies in Syria. As such, there is panic from Doha to Washington. The terrorist coalition knows that it is now or never for major intervention, which may force the White House to order direct strikes against the Syrian regime, which undoubtedly will be countered by Russian retaliation. This creates the potential for a rapid outbreak of a major regional war that could go global. We have effectively arrived at the point I have repeatedly forecasted would occur in Syria where either Moscow or Washington accepts a massive strategic policy defeat or there is a major war…perhaps both. This is inescapable at this point. The best case scenario is if the US backs out by aligning with Russia to defeat ISIL and negotiate a peace deal that leaves the regime in place for now. This is highly unlikely and if Hillary Clinton is elected, all but impossible.
- I am forecasting that the US will continue to spread false anti-Assad and anti-Russian propaganda to drum up war sentiment in the US to prepare the public for the announcement airstrikes against Syrian military positions. If the neo-cons within the establishment get their way the air strikes will happen, but there will be an immediate cost to US forces. Russia will defend its positions on the ground and engage any US forces that directly threaten Russian lives and interests. In this event, it is possible we will witness the first combat losses of US Fifth Generation Fighters, which Washington is rightfully terrified will occur. The loss of these jets will show everyone how much superiority the US has lost against countries like China under Obama. This will jeopardize the multi-billion dollar acquisition program that has been riddled with corruption, failures, and delays. As such, it is far more likely Washington will lead with cruise missile and drone strikes that are easier to deny and hide if they fail to achieve their objectives, but are also much less likely to achieve decisive results.
One of the single biggest mistakes preppers make is that they buy into the myth that relocating to a small region in the North West corner of the United States is their “best” chance of survival. As you now know from my previous three articles in this series, this theory is inaccurate and is not based on any sound research. Further, it causes people to unnecessarily incur significant additional costs and difficulties when developing their preparedness plans. However, what you still may not know is that there is a large body of empirical evidence that repeatedly demonstrates people living in isolated, remote areas are often at the greatest risk during wide spread social chaos and collapse. Not coincidentally, these people also suffer some of the most hardships. Therefore, with respect to our contemporary situation in the United States, preppers relocating to Idaho with the explicit intent to escape an oppressive government and or are planning to escape widespread instability during a systemic collapse of the system might very well be signing their death warrants. Instead, contrary to contemporary prepping strategies, it would be better to be closer if not in the midst of a more densely populated area.
I understand what I just wrote probably sent many readers into anger and shock. Nonetheless, it is far better to get the right information now then to continue along a misguided path to destruction. No doubt, some readers will immediately discount what I am about to say because they are blinded by their own preconceived biases. I cannot help those people. Thankfully, the majority of my readers are intelligent thinking people that will quickly grasp the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence and modify their preparedness strategies accordingly. In fact, don’t take my word alone, I invite everyone to conduct their own independent research into our prepping assumptions and disseminate their findings.
My theories seem counterintuitive to the premise that the farther from people you are, the farther from harm you are. This is because the basic assumptions of this safety distance premise are flawed. As the theory goes, in the event of a collapse or major catastrophe, being located away from people in a remote, self-sufficient redoubt is your best chance. I have already discussed why the 300 mile rule is a useless metric and that the notion of a “Golden Horde” of refugees fleeing a city and destroying all in their wake is equally unfounded and completely untrue. The last pillar of this theory is that being isolated conveys additional survival benefits. To test it accurately, one must evaluate case studies from around the world and then correctly apply them to a realistic scenario domestically. Read more
Before I post Part IV, I want to pause and recap the huge amount of ground already covered in parts one and two of this series (See links below to read and catch up). Previously, I showed that the most common assumptions preppers base their relocation decisions on are completely false and actually counterproductive to outright dangerous. The research I presented is groundbreaking within our community because it completely overturned the very foundation of what many have spent a lifetime basing their preps around. Understandably, some people within the prepper community have received the new information as radical heresy and immediately took to the defense. When new information is presented to any community, this visceral reaction is to be expected. After all, it challenged their entire basis for their preps and in this case, proved that much of their foundational assumptions were based on bad information. Read more
In part one of our series on “Prepper Relocation,” I directly addressed a common false logic amongst preppers that led to bad conclusions regarding why one should relocate to Idaho. Specifically, I challenged the idea that a bunker was a viable long term survival strategy for a major catastrophe many prep for such as nuclear war. Simply establishing a second residence in a modern first world location like Santiago, Singapore, or New Zealand offer far better options for survival, both physically and economically, than hiding in a hole while a nuclear war is carried out above you. Today, I continue the slaughter of the sacred cows and challenge the merits of relocating to a site far from other people. As I previously discussed, relocation isn’t a subject to take lightly. It may be the single most important decision a prepper makes and therefore any plan should be heavily vetted before time and money is invested in executing it. Therefore, one must consider counter arguments to contemporary “expert” recommendations. By leveraging the information in this series, you will be far better prepared to develop a personalized answer to what truly is you “best prepper place to relocate.”
Contemporary prepper logic states that the farther your relocation site is from dense centers of population, the better. In fact, the magic number often touted is that you must be at least 300 miles from any major population center. However, is this really the case? This is very important because if 300 miles is accurate, it severely constrains your relocation options. If it is not a valid constraint, then suddenly you have many good options for relocation depending on the specific scenario you are prepping for. As such, let’s examine what that conclusion is premised upon. Breaking the theory down, you have two main hypotheses to vet. The first is that 300 miles provides a necessary and adequate buffer from an urban center. The second is that from said urban area a horde of starving refugees will emerge and overrun your redoubt.
Let me be the first to tell you neither hypothesis constituting this prepper theory, which to date has been held up as prepper law, is valid. Read more
I routinely read articles online where individuals pontificate about where the best places for preppers to live or relocate too are. What I don’t usually see is any real cognitive effort to do a realistic analysis and assessment. This should be a red flag. Selecting your relocation site is one of the most important decisions a prepper must make. It is too important to be made on hearsay and opinions. Therefore, I am going to question that contemporary prepper relocation logic. I am going to debunk common myths and offer better alternatives that will help you develop a personalized answer to what truly is you “best prepper place to relocate.” When this series is complete, you will be armed with critical information necessary for identifying your ideal relocation spot. Don’t be surprised if after this eye opening series your philosophy on how you previously evaluated and envisioned your relocation site looks completely different.
Most preparedness “experts” would define the common prepper relocation logic is to find a place as far as possible from other people in an area still suitable for an off-grid, self-sustaining lifestyle. This implies the location has ample water, good soil, and a good growing season. Add a couple wild card factors like being outside the blast radius and fallout pattern of a nuclear detonation and avoiding known earthquake prone areas and most preppers conclude that Idaho is the choice destination. James Wesley Rawles, a man well known and respected throughout the prepper community and a recognized expert on the field is a big advocate of this relocation option. In Rawles’ defense, Idaho may indeed be a good location for some preppers for some reasons. However, Rawles and many others are basing many of their primary assumptions on outdated information, obsolete tactics and techniques, and generally old school logic that when tested in real world scenarios, fails. I don’t take this indictment lightly. If we get this wrong, we die and that is why it is so important we first question some of the fundamental assumptions the conventional prepper relocation plan is based upon. Read more
Here I go again, “just as I previously warned” (See: http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/?s=nuclear+arms+race+in+middle+east), Saudi Arabia announced that it will not rule out pursuing nuclear weapons pending any “nefarious” actions by Iran. Naturally, Saudi Arabia wasn’t keen on publicly discussing its most sensitive national defense plans with respect to its greatest threat, Iran; however, it was clear that Saudi’s are not denying they would pursue nuclear weapons.
Whether or not Saudi Arabia has already or intends to obtain nuclear weapons is of huge concern to the region and world. Without doubt, Iran is carefully analyzing these latest statements by Saudi Arabia and there is no way they will be taken as a positive sign in Tehran. As such, the Saudi statement made the region one step more paranoid, which equals one step closer to war. If the Saudis are trying to create the conditions for their own demise, they are doing a great job of it. Clearly, if Yemen is any indication, the new king is not capable of handling the complex geopolitics of the region and may indeed walk the region right into a major war.
By Guiles Hendrik
January 19, 2016
Black Friday hit world stock markets causing almost three trillion dollars in losses. As I predicted, this summer’s crash initiated a far larger crash cycle that is now returning with a fury. The Chinese contagion that was said to be “contained” by our leaders is anything but contained. It is now clear China’s economic crash wasn’t averted; it was just temporarily masked and delayed. Further, oil prices continue their steep decline and now are under 30 dollars a barrel. Also, 2015’s economic numbers are in and 2015 was the year global economies fell back into chaos. With compounding bad economic news in all markets globally, what can we expect going forward?
I have for years told advocates of energy independence that it isn’t $200 dollars a barrel for oil that I fear, but rather $20 a barrel. Most “experts” thought that by reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil supplies, we would somehow achieve greater stability. I correctly warned that if you want to see real chaos, drop the oil prices to $37 or below. Well, today, oil prices broke below the key technical floor of $30 per barrel and barring any intervention by Saudi Arabia to reduce oil production, we are going to soon test the $20 mark. Even before hitting the $37 mark, it was clear stability in the Middle East had gone from really bad to near worst case scenario. At the $20 per barrel mark something must break. Whether Saudi Arabia takes and knee and gives into OPEC pressure to cut production or a war breaks out, no oil producing country can continue to endure this price point much longer. This downward spiral in the oil market will only add to the vast problems in the Middle East and before the region rebalances, it is very likely more countries will collapse. With near certainty, the old geographic boundaries of the Middle East will be completely redrawn and it is increasingly likely we are seeing the first waves of what will eventually turn into a major collapse of Saudi Arabia. Read more