His speech at an international LGBT conference in Thailand effectively dared the UN General Assembly either to suspend him or watch him promote an eclectic and far-reaching gamut of policies to further the homosexual agenda internationally.

He not only promised to work to achieve widely agreed upon goals like ending violence against individuals who identify as LGBT, but also goals that do not enjoy political support even in socially liberal countries, like curtailing religious freedom and incorporating LGBT issues in the UN peace and security agenda.

Muntarbhorn’s agenda was summed up in 5 points:

decriminalizing sodomy

preventing mental health professionals from treating homosexuality as a disorder

ensuring legal documents reflect individuals’ subjective gender identity

imposing social acceptance of homosexuality, including by challenging religions

indoctrinating children and society through propaganda at all levels.

Even before Muntarbhorn’s post was established in June, and he was appointed to it in September, opponents of the position assumed it would promote acceptance of a broad agenda and not just focus on preventing “violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity” as the Obama administration and other Western governments insisted it would. The new 5-point plan fulfils the worst expectations of the critics of the post.

The Italian vote means, as here, a populist, anti-establishment surge has defenestrated a prime minister. There, as here, a new prime minister may be anointed without the bother of a general election. There, unlike here, that would probably further stoke the fires of popular discontent. Either way, sooner or later (which means in 2018) the main opposition, the Five Star movement, could be elected promising a referendum on membership of the euro, if not the European Union itself.

The EU was hardly in a self-confident, ebullient mood in the first place. The continent's economy still stutters. The euro crisis returns with the wearing familiarity of a pantomime villain. Members question its other great project, the common borderless area, in the light of the migrant crisis. Now this, the second EU straw in a populist gale that will blow throughout next year. And Italy was the birthplace of the union, where the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.

The UK leaving the orbit of the European Union is one thing. We were a late addition, always rather reluctant, still part of the solar system but orbiting some where beyond Pluto, not part of the euro, not part of agreements on justice and home affairs, not part of the borderless arrangement. By contrast, Italy is one of the inner planets.

So is the Netherlands. There, Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom is predicted to do well in the elections next year, perhaps with him becoming prime minister. He wants to take the Netherlands, another founder member, out of the European Union. But France is the big one. Most expect the French presidential election to be a play-off between the National Front's Marine Le Pen and Francois Fillon from the centre right. She has promised the French a referendum on the membership of the European Union. He wants an end to dreams of a federal Europe.

The Italians, the French, the Dutch will, over the coming year, raise profound questions about the EU. Its fate will be a, perhaps the, central issue in their elections. The apparent success of hard-right parties will push mainstream parties to consider their more popular ideas. Italy leaving the euro would be a profound shock to the EU's most important project, but it could survive. But an EU without France and the Netherlands as well as the UK?

In an angry outburst, the head of the Catholic Church, said calls for "no more war" have been ignored. He said: “'No more war!' was something that Europe said sincerely, I believe Schumann, De Gasperi, Adenauer, they said it sincerely. But afterwards, nowadays there is a lack of leaders; Europe is in need of leaders, leaders who go ahead." The pope, speaking to Belgian Catholic weekly Tertio, said European leaders have not taken the Vatican's message for peace seriously. 

He said: "I have spoken to the European continent three times: twice in Strasbourg and once last year, or this year. I think that 'No more war!' has not been taken seriously, because after the First there was the Second, and after the Second there is this third war we are experiencing now, piecemeal. We are at war. The world is conducting a third world war: Ukraine, Middle East, Africa, Yemen. It is very grave." 

The pope dismissed religion as a cause of war, saying terrorists distort faith to commit atrocities, referencing the Brussels attacks, which saw 32 people killed in a series of suicide bombings. He said: "One cannot wage war in the name of God or in the name of a religious position. War cannot be waged in any religion. And for this reason terrorism and war are not related to religion. Religion is distorted to justify them, this is true."

The billionaire made headlines after introducing a plan to implement a cashless system in multiple third-world countries – already being rolled out in India – despite criticism that the program would undoubtedly give financial elites total control over monetary systems. Despite the media’s constant glowing portrayal of Gates, which is rooted in his funding of major news outlets, a look at many of the so-called philanthropist’s pet projects reveals his true nature.

Aside from his founding of computing giant Microsoft, a corporation which has worked hand in hand with the NSA to eviscerate privacy, Gates’ role in the destruction of health worldwide is made obvious by the companies he invests in. A breakdown of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s 2012 tax return by Mother Jones reveals billions in funding to corporations such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Other groups receiving major cash include private prison company the GEO Group Inc, military contractor Dyncorp, a major player in human trafficking, and nearly every top oil company.

A major focus of the Gates Foundation has also been invested in vaccination campaigns, although Western media has completely ignored major ethical issues brought up by medical experts in countries such as India, where more than 47,500 children were paralyzed shortly after one of Gates’ campaigns. Just last year, India’s Supreme Court began investigating Gates involvement in a vaccine trial that resulted in the deaths of several young girls.

Everything from gun control, Common Core and geoengineering, the practice of spraying toxic particles into the stratosphere to block the sun’s rays, has received millions in funding from Gates. Gates has also taken heat for investing millions into biotech giant Monsanto, a corporation currently flooding foreign countries with genetically engineered crops.

In reality, the call for global government by Gates and other wealthy elitists has nothing to do with lifting up impoverished nations. Such a government would instead guarantee global surveillance, global wealth inequality and a world run by the exact corrupt interests currently consolidating wealth and power worldwide.

Global financial repression picks up steam, led by India. After declaring large denomination notes illegal, India now targets gold. It’s not just gold bars or bullion. The government has raided houses, no questions asked, confiscating jewellery. India’s raid on gold reinforces its ban on cash. Short term aside, these kinds of actions will increase demand for gold.

I keep wondering: what’s next? People pretend they know, I admit I do not. However, I am quite sure a currency crisis is coming. Where it strikes first is unknown, but the list of likely candidates increases every year. My spotlight has been on Japan, China, and the EU. India caught me off guard, but it adheres to my general theory this pot will eventually boil over in a cascade from an unexpected place, outside the US.

US actions may cause a currency crisis, but I believe a crisis will hit elsewhere first. If I am correct, gold will be the safe haven, regardless of currency, but especially where the crisis hits.

"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with," Trump said. "Instead, our focus must be on defeating terrorism and destroying ISIS, and we will." Trump's rhetoric was similar to what he said during the election campaign when he railed against the war in Iraq.

In Fayetteville, he vowed a strong rebuilding of the US military, which he suggested has been stretched too thin. Instead of investing in wars, he said, he would spend money to build up America's aging roads, bridges and airports.

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?