? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)
Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.
?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:
Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually!
Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.
Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.
The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.
Book description:
“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.
So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.
On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.
The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.
A Danish pension fund, AkademikerPension, is reportedly divesting its US Treasury holdings to the tune of $100 million. Anders Schelde, AkademikerPension’s investing chief, claims they are concerned about the condition of US government finances and rising credit risk. They even admitted the Greenland political tensions simply made the decision easier, but the core point remains financial.
“It is not directly related to the ongoing rift between the [U.S.] and Europe, but of course that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision,” Schelde said in a statement to CNBC. The figure may be small, but this is how sovereign debt crises begin. One institution quietly reduces exposure. Then another. Then the press tries to dismiss it as meaningless. Then the trend becomes undeniable, and once confidence turns, it does not reverse on command.
Schelde claims America’s “poor government finances” are to blame for the pullout. For decades, everyone has been brainwashed to believe that US Treasuries are risk-free. Sovereign debt is only “risk-free” until the market begins to question whether the government can maintain its obligations. Default is not always formal. More often, it is monetary, meaning they pay you back in depreciated purchasing power.
Now add the geopolitical layer. There is now a fear that economic warfare may begin between the US and Europe. When governments start threatening tariffs, economic retaliation, and territorial disputes, capital flees. Europe is sitting on a mountain of US debt. If just a tiny fraction of that begins to flee, the impact could become a contagion. That’s when yields rise, liquidity becomes strained, and the government has to roll debt at higher rates.
Foreign investors hold roughly 20–25% of all outstanding US Treasury debt, which translates into about $8–$9 trillion. European investors are the largest regional block of foreign holders of U.S. long-term Treasuries. Eurozone investors alone account for roughly one-fifth of total foreign long-term Treasury holdings. So when tensions rise through NATO disputes, capital begins to reassess what “risk-free” means.
If you look at Europe’s NATO countries collectively, we’re talking about several trillion dollars in US Treasuries and other dollar assets. Estimates in the financial press place European NATO holdings around $2.8 trillion in Treasuries alone.
The United Kingdom alone has been sitting on roughly $700–$900 billion in Treasuries, depending on the date. Then you have Luxembourg around $370 billion, Ireland in the low hundreds of billions, and other major holders spread across Europe. Much of Europe’s exposure is routed through financial centers like Luxembourg and Ireland rather than sitting neatly on a central bank balance sheet, which is why people underestimate the scale.
This is why I have repeatedly warned that governments are driving the world toward capital controls. When confidence breaks, they will not reform. They will not cut spending. They will not accept responsibility. They will blame “speculators,” “foreigners,” “hoarders,” and “disinformation.” Then they will try to trap capital inside their borders.
?? Germany's Chancellor Merz says it was a 'serious strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy'. pic.twitter.com/sUilOpSpCs
— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) January 15, 2026
Phasing out nuclear energy was a “serious strategic mistake,” admits German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “It was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy,” Merz said. “If you were going to do it, you should have at least kept the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany on the grid three years ago, so that we would have had the same electricity generation capacity.”
Repeatedly, I warned that Germany was committing economic suicide by adhering to the climate change anti-fossil fuel agenda and blindly agreeing to cut off Russian imports. “We’re now making the most expensive energy transition in the entire world. I don’t know of a second country that makes it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany does. We set ourselves a goal that we now have to correct, but we simply don’t have enough energy generation capacity,” Merz continued.
Granted, most of the Christian Democratic Union was in favor of nuclear power. Merkel, Merz’s political rival, set Germany’s energy crisis in motion through abhorrent policies. Between the COVID lockdowns, then the Climate Change and NET ZERO regulations, on top of that, the Russian sanctions to cut off energy purchases, the most crucial economy within Europe has been sabotaged by the politicians who are mindless and lack any understanding of how the world economy functions, not to mention their own.
On March 11, 2011, when an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, Chancellor Merkel and her cabinet held that nuclear power in Germany had to come to an end. It was a historic event and a historic decision (see Der Spiegel). The new green deal of Merkel quickly became bogged down in the details of German reality and the impracticability of the whole idea. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, was a major project that was up there with Germany’s reunification.
Germany was then heavily relying on coal, but government is aiming to phase it out by 2038, with some politicians believing it can be done by 2030. Germany officially closed its last nuclear power plant in April 2023, naturally, reliance on fossil fuels increased.
Recall that in February 2022, former US President Joe Biden and then German Chancellor Olaf Scholz held a joint press conference where they subtly threatened Nord Stream 2, the continent’s main supplier of Russian oil. “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be, there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Biden stated during the joint press conference with Scholz. “I promise you, we will be able to do it.” The neocons hailed the destruction a victory but the true victim was Germany. Biden admitted that there would be a “temporary” energy price increase due to Russian sanctions at the time. “Defending freedom will have costs for us as well, and here at home. We need to be honest about that,” Biden stated to deflect the blame. CNN even reported the decision as an economically masochistic act, “The West showed Tuesday it was ready to target Russia’s huge energy industry — even at the risk of hurting itself — after Moscow ordered troops into parts of eastern Ukraine.”
Trump called Ukraine the wall between Russia and Europe and stated that America had become the “sucker country” by shelling out millions to Ukraine when they received far less in return. He warned Europe that their reliance on Russian imported energy would spell disaster and went as far as declaring that Germany was “totally controlled by Russia.” Instead of looking for energy alternatives, Germany went through with the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline and wasted billions as sanctions were implemented before the pipeline was fully functional.
Germany now relies on expensive renewables through wind and solar for over 60% of energy demand. Oil drives 36% of demand currently, and while renewables are rapidly expanding, it remains to be seen whether Germany can run on 80% renewables by 2030. Merz is not advocating reopening the plants as “nuclear” fears have a chokehold on voters, but he is considering small modular reactors, which simply are not sufficient to meet demand. Bad policies can quickly cripple an economy.
China’s GDP advanced by 4.5% in Q4 2025, slightly down from the 4.8% in Q3. Economic output for the year was 5%, in line with the target and aided by a strong industrial output of 5.2% in December. Notably, retail sales grew at a slow pace of 0.9% for the month, and growth slowed 4.5% YoY, highlighting the decline in domestic demand.
When an economy is truly healthy, domestic demand leads. The consumer spends, business expands, imports rise, and you see balanced growth. Instead, what we are seeing is the opposite. External trade is carrying the headline numbers while the internal economy becomes more fragile.
Beijing is leaning on industrial activity and exports, and this is where the imbalance becomes glaring. China posted a nearly $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025, with exports rising about 5.5% even as imports showed little growth. China is selling to the world because it cannot fully absorb production domestically.
You also see this in the real estate collapse and the investment drag. Property has been the primary store of wealth and confidence for the Chinese. Reuters noted property investment fell 17.2% in 2025 and that consumption and investment are dragging while exports remain robust.
This is precisely why I have warned for years that you cannot look at “trade surplus” as some trophy without understanding the internal dynamics. The surplus is exploding because domestic demand is not keeping pace. Imports are not surging because the internal consumer and internal business confidence are not driving the same kind of pull. This is the classic imbalance of an economy becoming dependent on external demand. China is still on the rise long-term, but they’re looking at an economy that has become one-sided, which can be dangerous in today’s landscape of trade wars, regulations, supply chain constraints, and war itself.
US/AMERICAS:
DJIA declined by 870.74 points (-1.76%) to 48,488.59
S&P 500 declined by 143.15 points (-2.06%) to 6,796.86
NASDAQ declined by 561.07 points (-2.39%) to 22,954.322
Russell 2000 declined by 32.40 points (-1.21%) to 2,645.343
Canada Market Closings:
TSX Composite declined by 340.68 points (-1.03%) to 32,750.28
TSX 60 declined by 26.64 points (-1.39%) to 1,896.43
Brazil Market Closing:
Bovespa advanced by 1,349.32 points (0.82%) to 166,198.59
The Board of Peace was established in November 2025 to champion the Gaza-Israel ceasefire. Donald Trump will act as the first chairman and has begun inviting nations to join, including Russia. The headlines are reacting as if this is some radical, unprecedented concept.
I have said repeatedly that the real objective for decades has never been “defense.” It has been control. NATO was transformed from a Cold War alliance into a political weapon, and once you turn something into an instrument of power, you can no longer negotiate honestly because your entire structure depends upon having an enemy. That is why every peace proposal gets attacked by the very people who claim they want peace. Their careers, budgets, and political relevance depend on conflict.
Here is what the press will not tell you. Russia was asked to join NATO in the 1990s. I have seen the declassified documents from the Clinton Administration and provided them in my book, The Plot to Seize Russia. Russia was offered the chance to join NATO. That was viewed internally as a surrender to the United States, and it fueled political backlash inside Russia. Yeltsin standing on the tank was not some Hollywood moment. It was the turning point where Russia’s internal struggle over its future collided with how the West was positioning itself behind the scenes.
The West had a window where it could have ended the Cold War properly. Instead, it pivoted into expansion, not because it was “necessary,” but because it was profitable and politically useful. They wanted a unipolar world. They wanted Russia down permanently. They wanted Europe locked into dependence. And now they stand there shocked that Russia will not play the role of obedient subordinate.
The Board of Peace is a public relations attempt to manage a crisis that has spiraled beyond anyone’s control. The bankers, the politicians, and the bureaucrats are all trapped. Europe is collapsing economically, and war has become the only policy tool they have left to distract the population from the failure of their fiscal mismanagement, their censorship, their energy suicide, and their endless taxation.
Trump’s instinct here is not wrong: peace comes from aligning interests, not moral posturing. If you want to stop wars, you have to remove the incentive structure that rewards war. Bringing Russia into a broader security framework is not a “gift” to Russia. It is a way to remove the excuse for escalation. It is what should have happened decades ago. But the Neocons cannot allow that because the moment there is peace, the public starts asking where all the money went, why their standard of living is falling, and why government debt has exploded to levels that cannot be sustained.
Europe claims Russia is the threat, yet they have been pushing NATO to Russia’s border for decades while pretending it was “defensive.” If Russia had placed a military alliance on the US border, Washington would have responded the same way. This is not complicated. It is human nature and geopolitics.
The world is moving into a Sovereign Debt Crisis. That is the real backdrop to all of this. Governments are desperate because they cannot fund themselves honestly anymore. They will use war to justify capital controls. They will use war to justify surveillance. They will use war to justify anything. That is why the trend is becoming far more hostile globally. This is not about one man, one country, or one election. It is the cycle of government itself. Confidence rises and falls, and when confidence collapses, governments always reach for force.
If Trump is serious about a new peace structure, it will not be popular among the establishment because it threatens the entire war machine. And if Russia joining NATO is even discussed, it will expose the biggest lie of the last 30 years — that this was ever about defense rather than domination. They had the chance in the 1990s. They rejected real peace then, because peace did not serve their agenda.
Trump is requesting that Board of Peace member states pay $1 billion for permanent membership. This kind of blunt, transactional policy is misread by those who believe peace should come without a price tag, but it exposes the core hypocrisy that has infected NATO and the entire post-war alliance structure.
For decades, Europe has behaved as if the United States is some endless ATM that exists to underwrite its defense, its bureaucracy, and its political fantasies. They lecture the world about morality, human rights, and “shared values,” while simultaneously refusing to pay their own bills. NATO has become the perfect example. The United States supplies the overwhelming share of the money, the hardware, the logistics, and the risk, while Europe holds press conferences and tells America what it “must” do. That is not an alliance.
The press will portray this $1 billion idea as extortion. There is no such thing as collective security without collective contribution. If a country wants a seat at the table permanently, wants access to intelligence, protection, diplomacy, crisis response, and the prestige of being “in the club,” then they should have skin in the game. Otherwise, what you get is what we have now where countries demand war because they know someone else will pay for it.
Members can participate for three-year stints without the lump sum, but a lifetime membership is bought at a fixed price. That is far more honest than the current arrangement, where membership becomes a permanent entitlement, and the bill gets dumped on the United States through political pressure. At least this is transparent. Pay for permanence or rotate in and out.
The real issue here is that NATO was never designed to be a welfare system. It was created in a very different era, and like every bureaucracy, it evolved into something that exists for its own survival. Once an institution has payrolls, pensions, contractors, and political status, it will find reasons to continue forever. That is why NATO has expanded rather than dissolved after the Cold War. That is why there is always a new “existential threat.” If there is no enemy, there is no justification for the budget.
Trump treats alliances like contracts. Contracts require terms, enforcement, and payment. The Europeans want the benefits of an American security, but they do not want the obligations. That is why they always scream “America First” as if it is some crime to defend your own national interest.
But Europe cannot pay. That is the underlying reason for the entire crisis. They are sinking under socialism, overregulation, and endless taxation. Their energy policy has been economic suicide. Their debt is rising while their economies stagnate. Their demographic trend is collapsing. They have built a model where productive people are punished to subsidize bureaucracies and political promises that can never be honored. And the establishment now seeks war because it distracts the people, justifies emergency powers, and provides an excuse for confiscation.
The media will claim this makes diplomacy exclusive or pay-to-play. But diplomacy is already pay-to-play. It always has been. The difference is that now the payment is explicit rather than hidden through backdoor pressure, debt issuance, and American taxpayers financing Europe’s defense while Europe spends money on welfare programs and lectures America about climate taxes. When an alliance becomes a one-way street, it will not last. Trump is simply forcing the accounting that everyone else has refused to do.
Around 10% of all autos sold in Poland were manufactured in China, a sharp 427% annual increase. Governments have been leery of Chinese autos, fearing their ability to undercut the European market, but now a new concern has arisen—military security.
Chief of the General Staff General Wiesław announced a coming ban on all Chinese-manufactured cars in military facilities and units. “In 2025, the Military Counterintelligence Service issued guidelines on how to protect military facilities in connection with threats arising from the use of various devices manufactured in China,” the ministry stated.
Poland is not the first nation to ban Chinese-made vehicles from military bases. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) refuse to permit Chinese autos form entering military bases. Owners must park outside the perimeter as the Chinese government may be using cameras and sensors to acquire sensitive data. The IDF has already recalled 700 Chinese-made EVs, citing a “real concern of sensitive information leakage.”
The UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) has also banned certain Chinese vehicles from “sensitive military bases” and other sites that could be vulnerable to espionage. The MoD went as far as asking personnel to monitor their private discussions while driving in Chinese cars, and to assume that the Chinese government has the ability to monitor them at all times.
China has banned Tesla vehicles from entering their military bases and housing complexes for the same reason. All modern vehicles have advanced cameras, GPD, microphones, and the ability to log data. We cannot ensure we are in privacy even when we are inside our personal vehicles. The bigger concern becomes whether governments will begin rejecting foreign vehicles entirely.
QUESTION: Marty; Do you intend to endorse anyone for the midterm elections?
ER
ANSWER: No. The Neocons have their fangs very deep into Congress. I cannot in good conscience endorse anyone. Even if the actual candidate may not be on board with the Neocons, they install plants who give bad advice to support the Neocons, even when the candidate is unaware that they are being manipulated. I have tried my best, but it just is not good enough.
Europe’s Delusion: The Sixth March to Moscow
The cycle of history reveals a pattern so consistent it borders on the absurd: Europe, clinging to memories of empires that no longer exist, repeatedly attempts to reassert dominance through the conquest or subjugation of Russia. We are now witnessing what may be the sixth iteration of this fatal attraction, and like all previous attempts, it is destined to fail—not because of Russian military superiority, but because Europe fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power in the 21st century and refuses to accept its own diminished position in the global order.
The cycle is clear. Europe’s time as a dominant force in world affairs ended 80 years ago. The sixth invasion of Russia is merely the final proof that Europe’s political elite class never accepted this reality. By the time the current crisis resolves, that acceptance will no longer be optional. The world is moving on, and Europe is being left behind—frozen in the Russian winter of its own making, one final time.
The idea that the Eurozone’s larger GDP would automatically make the euro defeat the dollar as the world’s dominant reserve currency was a popular hypothesis in the early years of the euro (late 1990s/early 2000s), but it has proven to be an oversimplification. This has always been about rising to the top of the world once again living in the glow of past memories of greatness.
The newspaper that famously claimed the “Pound’s days are numbered” and would decline because the UK was not joining the euro was The Independent. On June 5, 2000, The Independent ran a front-page headline stating “Pound’s days are numbered”, with the article arguing that the pound was doomed to fall sharply in value if Britain stayed out of the euro. This came during a period of intense debate in the UK about whether to adopt the single European currency.
The problem always stems from the failure to understand what is the backbone of a reserve currency that the Eurozone lacks. In times of global crisis, investors still overwhelmingly flock to U.S. dollar assets. The capitalization of just the NYSE is greater than all of European exchanged combined. Political & Military Power has always been key from ancient dats of Athens, Alexander the Great, to Rome and even Venice during the Middle Ages. The dollar’s role is underpinned by U.S. geopolitical influence and security alliances, which the EU does not match as a unified entity.
The prediction, however, turned out to be incorrect in the medium term. Instead of declining, the pound actually strengthened significantly against the euro for much of the following decade, reaching a peak in the mid-2000s. The journalists and economists who confidently declared the “pound’s days are numbered” in 2000 were catastrophically wrong. Yet most faced no professional consequences for such spectacular predictive failure—they simply moved on to the next confident prediction.
This is why I have consistently argued: ignore the consensus, follow the cycle, and question anyone who claims certainty about complex systems reduced to a single explanation. The euro prediction debacle is a textbook case of how political ideology, groupthink, and institutional bias can produce wildly inaccurate forecasts that are presented as inevitable economic truth.
This headline is often cited as a classic example of media misjudgment on major economic and political issues. A significant strand of argument in parts of the London press did claim that adopting the euro was a French-led project designed to challenge, and ultimately “defeat,” United States economic and geopolitical dominance. That dream failed for the Eurozone could not turn away from the Marxist Agenda.
The Neocons are working overtime telling their plants to inform their candidate not to listen to our forecasts. I have encountered this before and this time they are going all out. I find it strange how every intelligence agency wants this info, but members are Congress are being told to keep you distance. This obviously intended to make sure they get their World War III. We will be issuing an update to the Cycle of War for 2026. We will let you know when it shall be released.
QUESTION: Marty, you have said that every religion has undergone some schism. That implies that governments have also seen splits and even civil wars. Is this what Socrates has uncovered that unity cannot exit in ant group setting?
Greg
ANSWER: There have been major upheavals in religion, such as the Byzantine Iconoclasm, a profound religious and political crisis that rocked the Byzantine Empire for over a century (with two main phases: 726–787 and 814–842 AD). While the act of putting Christ’s image on coinage by Emperor Justinian II (c. 692 AD) was a highly significant and a controversial event that intensified theological debate and foreshadowed the coming conflict, it is not considered the beginning of Byzantine Iconoclasm. However, the Muslims were using the Byzantine coinage until this event. That is what caused Islam to begin to issue their own coinage.
Then there was the Great Schism of 1054 in Christianity between the East (Orthodox) and the West (Rome). Sunni-Shi’a divide, which originated in a succession crisis after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632AD. Martin Luther (1483–1546) was the Catalyst for the Protestant Reformation when he nailed his “95 Theses” to the door in 1517AD. Judaism has experienced major ideological fractures and the gradual emergence of distinct movements, particularly in the modern era. Buddhism has a clear history of major schisms, often formalized by councils. Hinduism is inherently pluralistic, so “schism” is less applicable. Daoism in China split primarily along liturgical and lineage lines. The major schism in Shinto is a modern, politically engineered one. Sikhism experienced a major, definitive schism after its 10th Guru. We find that religions have split as we see politically in nation-states.
To me, this demonstrates that there will ALWAYS be a division among nations for politics is even more divisive. If religions split, the division of a nation into groups of political views is much more possible than religion.
South Korea sentencing former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison over his martial law attempt is a major historical event because it cuts straight to the heart of what always happens when a leader believes he personally IS the state. The court found him guilty of abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and falsifying official documents, all tied to that failed martial law move.
Martial law exists in most constitutions as a last-resort mechanism because once a head of state tries to invoke it for political survival, it is no longer governance. It becomes the weaponization of government against the people. Yoon panicked when it became apparent that he was facing impeachment. Blaming North Korea, Yoon declared emergency martial law for a full three hours before it was overturned by Parliament.
The former president was sentenced to five years in prison, a small price to pay considering there were calls for the death penalty. South Korea has not carried out a execution in three decades. “Calling for the death penalty for Yoon is not a matter of choice but a necessity and cannot be considered excessive,” said Moon Geum-ju, a Democratic Party floor spokesperson. Executing a former head of state does not inspire confidence to say the least.
When we look at the Monthly Array from 2023, we can see that the major turning point would be April 2024, which the computer was projecting from November 2023. The April 10, 2024, election, when all 300 members of the National Assembly were elected, 254 from first-past-the-post constituencies and 46 from proportional party lists. The two largest parties, the Liberal Democratic Party and the conservative People Power Party, once again set up satellite parties to take advantage of the electoral system.
The election served as a “mid-term evaluation” of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s administration, which is nearing its third year. The question became whether the ruling party could surpass the constraints of the ruling coalition, which did not secure a majority in the previous general election. The election saw opposition parties, primarily the Democratic Party, retain their majority in the National Assembly. We can see that the numerous Directional Changes thereafter ensured a divided political state.
South Korea has a long history of prosecuting former leaders after they leave office. But this case is uniquely important because it wasn’t just a bribery scandal or political persecution. Yoon is being held accountable for permitting his own ambitions to override the constitution and crossing a line that no leader in a constitutional republic is permitted to cross.
Leaders start thinking they can rule by decree. They silence opponents. They use state power to protect themselves. And when they fall, the entire system suffers the aftershock. The markets may shrug for a day, but society doesn’t.
