But of course these latest earthquakes are just the latest examples of increased shaking along the outer perimeter of the Pacific Ocean. Experts are not quite sure what to make of all of this shaking, but they are warning that “the Big One” could strike the west coast at literally any time.

In recent months there has been a lot of earthquake activity along the west coast, and this has raised fears that “the Big One” could be coming soon. And Fox News recently reported that a major study has concluded that it is likely that someday the 800-mile-long San Andreas fault “could unzip all at once”…

“For years, scientists believed the mighty San Andreas — the 800-mile-long fault running the length of California where the Pacific and North American plates meet — could only rupture in isolated sections. But a recent study by federal, state and academic researchers showed that much of the fault could unzip all at once, unleashing a rare, singular catastrophe. Now, insurers have used that research to come up with a new analysis of the damage that could be caused by statewide break of the San Andreas.”

The crust of our planet is becoming increasingly unstable, but meanwhile most people have been lulled into a false sense of security. At some point a great California earthquake is coming, and when it strikes it is going to change the lives of tens of millions of people in a single moment.

On Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not "vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

The appended note in question:

Editor’s Note: “The Washington Post on November 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda.

A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.”

Criticism culminated this week when the "Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.  Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

Not since the election of Ronald Reagan has the mood on the right shifted in such a positive direction so suddenly.  But now that everyone is feeling so good about things, very few people still seem interested in prepping for hard times ahead.  In fact, it is like a nuclear bomb went off in the prepping community.

As the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, I am in contact with a lot of people that serve the prepping community.  And I can tell you that sales of emergency food and supplies have been crashing since Donald Trump’s surprise election victory.  Firms that help people relocate outside of the United States have seen business really dry up, and I know of one high profile individual that has actually decided to move back to the country after Trump’s victory. 

It is almost as if the apocalypse has been canceled and the future history of the US has been rewritten with a much happier ending. Personally, I am quite alarmed that so many people are suddenly letting their guard down, but it is difficult to convince people to be vigilant when things seem to be going so well. 

And the numbers back this up.  In a previous article, I discussed the fact that a recent Gallup survey discovered that the percentage of Republicans that believe that the US economy is “getting better” increased from just 16 percent immediately prior to the election to 49 percent immediately after the election. I don’t recall ever seeing such a shift in public sentiment in just a few days.  Tens of millions of Americans have put their faith in Donald Trump, and time will tell if he will be able to deliver. 

All of the things that myself and other watchmen have been warning about all this time are coming. My hope is that the optimists are right and that the horrible events that are coming will be put off for as long as possible. But I wouldn’t count on it. A day of reckoning for America is fast approaching, and those that are wise understand the signs of the times.

Perhaps if this industry was comprised of many small businesses, it wouldn’t be so bad. But, at least in Western society, almost all of the food and beverages we buy are owned and operated by just a handful of companies.

A mere ten companies have managed to usurp control of many popular foodstuffs and beverages. This includes Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, Associated British Foods and Mondelez. Each and every one of these companies makes billions of dollars each year in revenue, and have spread their presence across the globe.

Oxfam has said that it took action and showed people who is controlling the brands of food and beverages that they purchase as a way to hopefully push the companies into making positive changes within their countries of operation. While this is important, the presence of such extreme monopolization in our food industry is also very concerning for a number of reasons.

Monopoly power comes with many drawbacks — except of course, for whoever is at the helm of the monopoly. When companies have extremely concentrated power like this, they hike up prices well beyond what can be justified based on production costs — prices that are higher than they would be if they had any kind of actual competition. And with higher prices, consumers will demand less quantity.  

This, in turn, means that the quantity of a product being produced and consumed will be lower than it would be under a more competitive market structure. To put it simply, monopolies create prices that are far too high, and reduce production levels far too much. Product quality is also often an issue.

Of course, the consequences of monopolies aren’t just limited to the effects they can have on the economy. You see, large monopolies are also capable of yielding political influence. They are also often able to “capture” political and regulatory processes. Large firms may use their influence and financial power to sway legal and regulatory processes in their favor, or against any potential threat to its market power. Industries that have been monopolozied also utilize their newfound power to bring about changes that widen their profit margins.

She pledged to strengthen the forces of law and order while speeding up the sclerotic deportation process of failed asylum seekers. She said at the start of her speech designed to claw back ground lost in recent months to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Angela Merkel said: "Not all the 890,000 refugees who came last year can or will stay."

But the pastor's daughter who was raised in communist East Germany pledged that every asylum application would be judged on its merits and that people would not be lumped into an "anonymous mass." She said that a refugee situation of the kind Germany had endured in the summer of last year "can and should not be repeated."

And she pledged that the law of the land stood above "any honour codes or Sharia". Mrs Merkel's critical speech came as tensions continue to rise following the brutal rape and murder of  a 19-year-old medical student. An Afghan refugee has been arrested in connection with the murder.

"Germans therefore keep exporting easily and running up a surplus while the Italians struggle and go deeper in to debt." Italian opposition parties want to ditch the euro and hope Mr Renzi's defeat will pave the way for a return to the lira but Mr Hague warned there is no easy way out of the eurozone.

He wrote: "Mr Renzi's defeat has not made the eventual break-up of the euro more certain, because that is coming anyway. It has simply made it more obvious. Leaving the euro, however, is a far more difficult problem than leaving the EU." 

"As everyone now knows, Article 50 provides for leaving the latter. It may be a vague and inadequate rule, on which our Supreme Court is now deliberating at length, but it is nevertheless a rule that provides for getting out. The eurozone has no such rule. This is a burning building you are never meant to leave. What is more, you are barricaded in."

On that Monday, the 538 members of the Electoral College will gather in their state capitals in all 50 states to formally elect the next president. Throughout US history electors have voted according to the will of the people more than 99 percent of the time, but in 2016 there is a concerted effort to persuade Republican electors not to vote for Trump.

If 37 Republican electors can be convinced to vote for someone other than Trump, that would keep Trump under the 270 vote threshold needed to win and it would throw the election into the House of Representatives.

Most people had considered this to be a longshot, but on Monday a Republican elector named Christopher Suprun publicly announced in the New York Times that he will not cast his vote for Donald Trump. On the other side, there are at least 8 Democratic electors that have already publicly pledged to switch their votes from Hillary Clinton to a compromise Republican alternative to Trump.

So we already know that there will be quite a few “faithless electors” on December 19th. The question will be whether or not they are able to rally enough electors to their cause to deny Donald Trump the presidency.