Which ‘New World Order’?

Who is planning a ‘New World Order’ (NWO),  in what form, and what progress so far?

Bill Gates: Vaccines, eugenics and plans to control you

Bill Gates. Vaccines, eugenics and plans to control you  From The Corbett Report, 1 May 2020

Editor’s note: This 42-page report, both written here and available in a 4-part video, explains how Bill Gates is controlling the management and implementation of compulsory vaccines throughout the world,  how this ties is with eugenics, and a plan to control the world. The report does not explain how or whether Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation relate to other components of the ‘Cabal’ or ‘Deep State’: Bill Gates. Vaccines, eugenics and plans to control you

Bill Gates: Vaccines, eugenics and plans to control you

From The Corbett Report, 1 May 2020

Conclusion: ‘We must spread the word about the dark nature of this population control agenda to as many people as we can before our ability to speak out against this agenda is taken away for good.

Thanks to the likes of Bill Gates, the virus of this population control agenda is already here. It is threatening to crash the system as we’ve known it.

But if Bill Gates has taught us anything, it’s how to deal with a virus.

It’s time for a hard reset.’

========================

Scan down to read the latest articles.  Links to more articles are at the end of this post.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PRESIDENT PUTIN’S ARTICLE

SOME THOUGHTS ON PRESIDENT PUTIN’S ARTICLE By Joseph P. Farrell, 25 June 2020

Editor’s note: This article comments on the following article by President Putin, as well as providing a link to the article.  It is one of the most significant articles I have ever read – worth reading twice and thinking deeply about it.

 Many, many people sent me copies of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s article on Russia’s role prior to and during World War Two. It’s an important article, and worth pondering carefully. It’s a long article, and I will do my best to parse it:

Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II

Mr. Putin opens the article with a rather poignant reminder of how virtually every family in Russia currently, had some family members involved in the defense of that country from the Nazi onslaught during World War Two:

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year-old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. However, I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart those conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

This passes shortly to a consideration of a question:

I often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the “red zone” to save lives. I see our servicemen that fight international terrorism in the Northern Caucasus and fought to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19-20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our homeland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfill their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Motherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.

I cannot help but think that Mr. Putin’s words are here to be understood as a message, both to his own people, and to the rest of the world, and particularly to the Globaloneyists of the West who are currently engaged on their project of undermining national sovereignties and cultures, especially their own. And the message (to the Russians) is: be prepared, we may have to defend our sovereignty again, and again at great cost and sacrifice. And the message to the self-destructing West is: think twice. The message is couched in a recitation of the obvious: World War Two in the European theater was won largely by the Russians. The bulk of the Nazi war machine juggernaut was deployed against Russia, and in order to defeat them, the Soviet Union had to deploy an equally massive military machine.

Mr. Putin then passes on to some unpleasant historical facts that few, now, know or are aware of, but they are there for all to see. For example, during the run-up to the pivotal Munich Conference of 1938 between France, Britain, Italy, and Germany, the hidden bad actor behind the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was not just Nazi Germany, but Poland, which wanted its own share of the spoils:

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”

Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr. Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded [to] Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The attitude of the Führer and Chancellor was fully appreciated by the Government and the public [of Poland].”

With this on the record, Mr. Putin sends yet another message to the West:

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defense of Czechoslovakia.”

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Given the recent Western interference in The Ukraine, and its constant refusal to accept geopolitical reality over Russia’s ‘annexation’ of the Crimea (after, it should be recalled, a clear referendum in the Crimea itself), Mr. Putin’s message would again seem to be clear: ignore our interests to your own peril.

Then comes what  I regard as a central and significant series of statements:

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defenses.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let us recall that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of 24 December 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way re?ected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”(Emphasis added)

In other words, yes, we know that Stalin and his regime had little to no regard for the Russian people, and that their geopolitical calculations were, in the end, cynical, but cynical though those geopolitical calculations were, they were not blind nor irrational regarding the very real threat that Nazi Germany posed. Indeed, the Russian humiliation and surrender to the Kaiser in World War One was a fresh memory to most of those men in Stalin’s politburo. After all, the Soviet regime had itself been mid-wifed into existence by the Kaiser’s government precisely in an effort to bring and end to World War One in the east.  Hidden behind Mr Putin’s words is an intriguing position, one utterly the opposite of the cultural assumptions being wielded in the West by the political left, namely, that notwithstanding the criminality of Stalin’s regime, Russians have a right to be proud of their contribution to the end of World War Two, and they will not, nor should they, erase it in the name of some abstract ideal of perfection. Contrast Mr. Putin’s words that all this “is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history” with that of the left in the West. They are polar opposites.

And now come two bombshells:

Yet other states have preferred to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on 20 September 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honor … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has done it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians. (Emphasis added)

These two paragraphs alone I strongly suspect sent shockwaves and shudders through the corridors of power in the deep states of the West. Consider, firstly, the context of the remarks in the second paragraph above. The context is the first paragraph, and the reference to the silent international acquiescence or outright approval of the Western powers in the “barbarous plans of the Nazis”, a clear reference not only to the Holocaust, but moreover, the implication is that to a certain extent, it was an international event, or plan. Perhaps I’m parsing Mr. Putin’s words too closely here, but I think not, for I could not help but think of Max Nordau’s words to the Tenth ZIonist Congress, words uttered in 1910, and clearly implying some long term and international planning behind the Holocaust, as I’ve indicated in some of my previous  books.

But I think there’s a second set of implied messages here, revealed in Mr. Putin’s remarks in the second paragraph above, for note that (1) he specifically mentions the contents of the “secret Anglo-German talks” that “still have not been declassified.” Again, I have to pause, because I strongly suspect these talks, which were conducted by Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, and his representative Helmut Wolthat (also the man that Goering appointed to oversee – here it comes – the Antarctic expedition), also have something to do with Rudolf Hess’s subsequent flight to Britain in 1941. Hess himself had conducted back channel diplomacy with the British prior to his flight, and there is some evidence that he had personally met with British representatives in neutral Nationalist Spain. Hess’s flight occurred prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union, and hence there is much speculation that Hess was attempting to “clear the table” of pesky British interference so that the full might of the German war machine could fall on Russia.  (For all of this, see my book Hess and the Penguins)

So we have two possible allusions here, both with strong implied messages: (1) Russia knows something of the implied cooperation re. the Holocaust, and (2) Russia knows something about the Anglo-German negotiations, which have not been declassified by either the British government nor the German government, since the end of the war. (There’s a further inference here, namely, that since much of the wartime German archives ended up in the hands of the USA after the war, the USA probably knows these details as well. Those archives, once part of the Berlin Document Center, were turned back over to the German federal government archives.)

Now, with all that context  in mind, consider the message – and possibly the implied threat – that Mr. Putin is conveying with the following words:

Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has done it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

In other words, we can either cooperate to craft a new narrative beneficial to all parties (“we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians”) and carefully covering all parties’ complicity in “something”, or, since it is clear “we all know something that we’re not talking about”, Russia can expose it unilaterally (“we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has done it in recent years.”)

To put this analysis country simple, I believe Mr. Putin’s words here are no longer a message addressed to the Russian people, nor even to the West, but rather, a message in the clear, in a kind of “public diplomacy in the shadows” intended for the deep state(s) of the West, with just enough detail to indicate that Russia knows more details and is prepared to leak them if the West is not prepared to take Russia’s interests into consideration. This implies something very significant: if the message is “received,” then how would it be conveyed to Mr. Putin? Answer: by a careful release or declassification of some of those classified archival documents to which he refers, and then subsequently, by the formation of an international committee or research foundation to ‘examine’ and ‘interpret’ those materials, and create the new narrative.

That this interpretation appears to be more or less generally correct is revealed by Mr. Putin’s following words:

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of the Second World War. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending world catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scientists from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the errors committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

When one reads these remarks in the context of the rest of President Putin’s article, it is clear that “collective security” is one of his major concerns and goals. Notably, and presciently, Mr. Putin realizes that “collective security” is impossible without a “search for a balanced assessment of what happened,” i.e., a new, agreed-upon narrative.

There is, however, a problem with Mr. Putin’s analysis of “collective security” itself. One could argue that the pre-World War One system of alliances that ultimately led to the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance that later became, sans Italy, the Central Powers, was a form of collective security. Note that the very name “Triple Entente” incorporates the word “entente,” meaning understanding, which could incorporate the idea of a “common narrative,” in this case, that imperial Germany was the problem. That “system” of ‘collective security’ meant that any international crisis between two countries – Austria-Hungary and Serbia for example – could quickly balloon into a much wider conflict, as it did. Today, it is a common criticism of the United Nations that almost any crisis between two nations can quickly reach out to involve parties not immediately concerned. More importantly, “collective security” is usually the typical response to a perceived threat that is more powerful than any one component of its “collectively secure” opposition: Germany clearly in the case of the two World Wars, but who now is the focus of Mr. Putin’s pleas for collective security? The USA? China? Probably the former, and do not rule out the latter. Indeed, via the EU, President Putin seems to be pointing the finger to the USA which, to be sure, has manipulated the record and resorted to its own disinformation campaigns in the wake of the developments in the Ukraine, which developments it (along with the EU in the form of Germany) has had a clear and guilty hand in:

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty, and adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on 19 September 2019 directly accused the USSR together with the Nazi Germany of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

This is quickly followed by this statement:

I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what does that show? Regrettably, this reveals a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for States a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Translation: the European Union project is destined to fail so long is it excludes Russia from the very idea of “Europe.” Case in point: excluding any mention of Russia’s decisive, essential, and central role in winning the war in Europe:

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War mention all participants in the anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre?war period.

Again, I have a strong caveat to register. Mr. Putin is clearly calling for “honesty” and an “opening of the archives” to create a real, or at least a closer approximation to the real record of World War Two. In this respect, I do not blame him one bit for wanting Russia’s role acknowledged in and by the West. But I have to wonder how far this desire for honesty goes. So let’s imagine that an international commission of scholars were to gather to address some of the issues President Putin raises in his article. What if some scholars point out – as Diana West has so passionately argued and demonstrated in her recent book American Betrayal – that it was due to the many Soviet agents of influence in the west and particularly in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt that Allied military resources were diverted to the 1944 cross-channel invasion, which would better have been used to thrust from Italy directly into the Balkans, which would have simultaneously unhinged the entire German military position on the eastern front, and denied the Soviet armies the occupation of whole swaths of Eastern Europe, and led to a vastly different post-war order? Would such views be welcome? Perhaps, perhaps not. (My suspicion is that this kind of honesty would actually be welcomed, but one has to think deeply and long as to why.)

After reviewing the various nations’ contributions to the defeat of Nazism, President Putin then returns to one of his major concerns: collective security, the UN, and particularly the Security Council:

What is veto power in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position for granted, abandoning any attempts to realize their unilateral efforts. So, in one way or another, it is necessary to seek compromises.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the veto power, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victorious powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of the mistakes of their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of the Second World War. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump and Mr. Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such a face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

There’s another problem lurking here, and it’s one Mr. Putin himself alluded to earlier in his article when he referred to the inherent problems of the Versailles system, a system which made the two most powerful continental powers – Germany and Russia – pariahs on the international stage. One wonders exactly how well any system of collective security on the Security Council will work, so long as two powers, Japan and Germany, remain without a permanent seat on the security council, and if they are to be forever demonized and denied that role on the security council. And if possession of nuclear weapons states are the criterion, then why is “the world’s largest democracy,” India, excluded from that status as well? If Taiwan could eventually lose its permanent seat and veto status on that body to Communist China, then perhaps it’s time to rethink the position of those nations as well.

The bottom line is, there is much to ponder in Mr. Putin’s remarks, both by way of its open statements, “public shadow diplomacy,” and by way of its distorting omissions. If and when the five power summit occurs, we’ll find out much more about where “they” intend to take “us.” And if, once again, those other powerful nations are excluded from the process, then it does not, in my opinion, bode well.

And, if I’m correct in my speculative assessment of those two “bombshells” in President Putin’s article have any element of truth to them, then it appears that Russia is willing to play hardball. Mr. Trump, M. Macron, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Xi will have to be on their game.

=====================

Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II

Vladimir Putin. The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II  By Vladimir Putin, 24  June 2020

Editor’s note: This is probably the most important speech in recent decades concerning the future of the world.

The Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War II, arguing that “Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account.”

by Vladimir Putin

Seventy-five years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the ninth of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year-old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. However, I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart those conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their home, their children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

I often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the “red zone” to save lives. I see our servicemen that fight international terrorism in the Northern Caucasus and fought to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19-20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our homeland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfill their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Motherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.

Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolizes our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives that defended their Motherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, their ordeals and sacrifices, as well as the Victory that they left to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in the Russian, but also in the foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicized speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War IThe Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical sentiments of revenge in Germany. The Nazis skillfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.

The “Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs”.

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organization to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, the civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”

Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr. Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded [to] Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The attitude of the Führer and Chancellor was fully appreciated by the Government and the public [of Poland].”

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as a “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defense of Czechoslovakia.”

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That is the essence of the western policy of appeasement, which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognize the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double?dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign a military convention on the organization of military defense of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.”

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union is not out of the question, in technical circumstances which remain to be agreed.”  At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.”

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defenses.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let us recall that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of 24 December 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way re?ected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”

Yet other states have preferred to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on 20 September 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honor … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has done it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on 8 September 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By 17 September, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, abandoning its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was in vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometers deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on 12 September 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. The former chief of the operations staff of the German armed forces high command, General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.”

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Polish state, the border of the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers”. In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belarusian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately following the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939 Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of 17 September, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines, which nowadays form part of the territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometers of Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemy?l, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, there is hardly any point in using the subjunctive mood when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalizing the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 Joachim von Ribbentrop and V.Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognized at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Vilna and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher state structures of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there is no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during the visit of Molotov to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” And on November 25 the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved the Barbarossa Plan. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognized the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian armies should stand on this line [the new Western border is meant] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” On October 4, 1939 speaking in the House of Lords British Foreign Secretary Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.” Prominent British politician and statesman D. Lloyd George emphasized, “The Russian armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after the First World War … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.”

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Maisky, British diplomats and high-level politicians spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939 Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belarus to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Chamberlain’s senior advisor H.Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also being explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and anti-Hitler coalition. Churchill stood out among other responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a grand alliance against aggression. The worst folly would be to drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia.” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.

The Second World War did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors of the world policy of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for a compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of the Second World War. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending world catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scientists from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the errors committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty, and adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on 19 September 2019 directly accused the USSR together with the Nazi Germany of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what does that show? Regrettably, this reveals a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for States a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War mention all participants in the anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre?war period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this regard, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgment of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also German satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilization and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within six months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realize, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people’s plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh split caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the absolute majority of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi “strategists” were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: “Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and division”.

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders of more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war, the feat of the Soviet people knew no national boundaries – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every meter of native land.

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at  Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished, or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark in my soul forever. Honoring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

And today, the simple and great in its essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the center of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. Only in the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhevsky Salient from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,154, 698 people, including wounded and missing. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite you another document. This is a report of February 1954 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the anti-Hitler coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together”. Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote “that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”.

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And here, members of the search movement, military?patriotic and volunteer associations, such projects as the electronic database “Pamyat Naroda”, which contains archival documents, play a special role. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with ammunition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the anti-Hitler coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belarus. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, it put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that the purpose of the War against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism. By the middle of 1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” The state chancellor of the provisional government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and slaughterers. In inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no statute of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with the Second World War veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. StalinRoosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victorious powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, and primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945 the nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is veto power in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position for granted, abandoning any attempts to realize their unilateral efforts. So, in one way or another, it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimize risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the veto power, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victorious powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of the mistakes of their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of the Second World War. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump and Mr. Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such a face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, as well as joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.

The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.

There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, ChinaFrance, the United States, and the UK can play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers were fighting shoulder to shoulder.

Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet and for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all States. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.

Vladimir Putin serves as President of the Russian Federation.

===========================

The Brave New World of Bill Gates and Big Telecom

The Brave New World of Bill Gates and Big Telecom  By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 13 June 2020

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote last week about Malibu police’s ticketing Point Dume surfers $1,000 apiece for using the ocean during the quarantine. Was this merely an appalling police judgment at which we will laugh post-quarantine? Or does anyone else feel that this is the first wave of compliance and obedience training for something more permanent? Are powerful state and corporate entities using the current crisis to remove basic rights, and intensify pressures to promote vaccines and surveillance? Does anyone else feel the suffocating darkness of tyranny descending on our nation? And finally, does anyone share my dread that Bill Gates—and his long-time associate Tony Fauci—will somehow be running our Brave New World?

Imagine a world where the government doesn’t need police officers to apprehend those surfers or ticket you when you violate social distancing with your girlfriend. Suppose that computers discover your beach trip by tracking your movements using a stream of information from your cell phone, your car, your GPS, facial recognition technology integrated with real-time surveillance from satellites, mounted cameras, and implanted chips. Desk-bound prosecutors or robots will notify you of your violation by text while simultaneously withdrawing your $1,000 penalty in cryptocurrency from your payroll account. Welcome to Bill Gates’ America. It’s right around the corner.

5G Strategies

Recently, Bill Gates announced his financial support for a $1 billion plan to blanket Earth in video surveillance satellites.  The company, EarthNow, will launch 500 satellites to live-stream monitor almost every “corner” of the Earth, providing instantaneous video feedback with only a one-second delay. According to Wikipedia, the company expects its customers to include “governments and large enterprises.” 5G Antennas­­­ deploying a vast array of ground-based 5G spy antennas. Through his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates purchased 5.3 million Crown Castle shares currently worth a billion dollars. The Foundation’s second-largest tech holding after Microsoft, Crown Castle owns 5G infrastructure in every major U.S. market. It operates and leases more than 40,000 cell towers, 65,000 small cell nodes which are the central infrastructure for 5G and 75,000 route miles of fiber to every major U.S. market that, instead of going to your home, providing you safe, fast, wired internet, has been confiscated to connect 5G cell towers.

… 5G has almost nothing to do with improving your lives; it’s all about controlling your life, marketing products, and harvesting your data for Artificial Intelligence purposes.

Data Mining

Big Telecom, Big Data, and Bill Gates are baiting Americans into a digital tyranny-trap with million-dollar TV ads that pretend that their multi trillion-dollar  5G investment is about faster download speeds for video games and movies. But 5G has almost nothing to do with improving your lives; it’s all about controlling your life, marketing products, and harvesting your data for Artificial Intelligence purposes. The 21st century’s “black gold” is data. 5G is the infrastructure for Gates’ “Internet of Things”—a world where tens of billions of “smart” devices: cell phones, computers, automobiles, garage door openers, Apple watches, baby diapers and even our living bodies—are wirelessly interconnected to enable Big Data to gather and sell our personal information.Brave New WorldAldous HuxleyBest Price: $2.00Buy New $12.28(as of 09:25 EST – Details)

Gates, Elon Musk, Amazon, Facebook, and Telecom are launching the flagships for the new Gold Rush, a teeming fleet of 50,000 satellites and a network of 2,000,000 ground antennas and cell towers to strip mine data from our smart devices. This microwave radiation-emitting spider web will allow Big Data/Big Telecom and Big Brother to capture what happens inside and outside every person at every moment of life. Gates will harvest, control, sort, characterize, analyze, and sell millions of terabytes of personal information from smart devices—private health data, medical records, our shopping habits, our biometric and behavioral responses to advertising, our children’s ability to learn, our facial expressions, and conversations overheard by Siri, Alexa, and your open cell phone’s microphones. His and other corporations will use these analytics to develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) and turn you into a predictable, easily-manipulated consuming machine.

Next time you buy a “smart” device, remember the device is not the product—you are.

Surveillance State & Transhumanism

Corporations will use Gates’ 5G surveillance system to sell products and escalate AI capacity. Governments will use it to transition the globe to a totalitarian singularity more despotic than Orwell ever imagined. Silicon Valley titans like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Google’s Chief Engineer Ray Kurzweil talk longingly of “transhumanism,” the process by which humanity will transition to become part-human, part-machine via genetic engineering and surgical implants.

Bill Gates is investing heavily to accelerate this altered reality. His ambition to tag us all with injected subdermal vaccine data chips seems to be merely a steppingstone toward an all-encompassing surveillance state.

Rewarding Compliance

Radiation Nation: Fall… Microsoft has patented a sinister technology that utilizes implanted sensors to monitor body and brain activity. It will reward compliant humans with crypto currency payments when they perform assigned activities.

The PatentWO |2020| 060606 has gained notoriety and the nickname “World Order 2020 666.” Microsoft describes this device as a “Crypto Currency System” and explains that it is “capable of” using body activity data to mine bitcoin in response to compliance with assigned tasks.

People who agree to install the Microsoft harmful wireless sensors will receive periodic “duty” smart phone instructions to watch a certain advertisement, listen to a specific song, walk down a specific grocery store aisle, or to take a certain vaccine. This chip will collect data from embedded sensors that monitor brain waves, blood flow, and other body reactions. The system will transfer cryptocurrency into the subject’s account after completion of the assigned task. On the bright side, Microsoft’s dystopian invention should be a welcome source of income for the 40% of Americans put out of work by periodic COVID quarantines, by Musk’s self-driving electronic cars, which also rely on the 5G rollout, and by Artificial Intelligence, including robots. Will Gates sell the data we freely give him to companies that will take away our jobs?

Owning Smart Cities

Maintaining and analyzing the data collected by a 5G infrastructure require massive computers housed in major data storage complexes. To keep control of this infrastructure, Bill Gates is building his own “smart city” in Arizona. According to KPNX-TV, he spent $80 million on a 24,800-acre plot near Phoenix with the goal of turning it into a “smart city” where everything is interconnected via a wireless grid, including fleets of autonomous vehicles. The 80,000 residents of Gates’ company town will mainly work in data centers.

To consolidate his control over what people hear, learn, and think, Gates bought shares in Liberty Global, one of the largest international television and Internet companies, operating in 30 countries and growing.1984 (Signet Classics)George Orwell

Controlling Reproduction

Gates will even control your body, your bedroom, your medicine cabinet and even women’s menstrual and ovulation cycles. He invested approximately $18 million in MicroCHIPS, a company that among other chip-based devices, develops birth-control implant chips with wireless on/off switches and chips for drug-delivery that allow a single implant to store and precisely deliver hundreds of therapeutic doses over months or years. The implants will be operated wirelessly by the patient to deliver medication. Knowing of Gates’ missionary zeal for population control, however, some customers might worry that the system could be remotely activated as well.

The expansion of the wireless cloud between 2012–2015 was equivalent to adding 4.9 million cars to the roads.

Controlling Climate: Geoengineering

Gates’ apparent conviction that God has ordained him to use technology for humanity’s salvation is exemplified in one of his most ambitious projects. Gates is funding Harvard scientists to use Geoengineering to block the sun to reverse global warming and climate change.

That project is a template for both hubris, hypocrisy and risk. The massive expansion of wireless use and the 5G wireless grid—for which Gates is a major player—is the most significant contributor to increased energy consumption. The expansion of the wireless cloud between 2012–2015 was equivalent to adding 4.9 million cars to the roads. 5G is expected to exponentially increase energy use by upwards of 170% by 2026. Proposing to use the wireless “smart” grid to combat the carbon footprint with geotechnology is a hare-brained scheme—not a solution for climate change.

Cashless Society

EMF*D: 5G, Wi-Fi & Cel…Dr. Joseph Mercola. To consolidate global control, Gates has declared war on cash, and the COVID-19 lockdowns have provided governments a convenient pretext for scuttling cash as a health hazard. Gates and his foundation are spearheading the global shift from a cash economy towards digital transactions. Gates and Microsoft are perfectly positioned to profit from a digital payments system. By controlling digital transactions (and removing cash), Gates can control and monitor everything commercial that a country and its citizens do.

Western financial institutions—Mastercard, PayPal, Visa, eBay, and Citi—have long pushed for a cashless world. Electronic banking allows banks and financial consortiums to levy fees on every transaction.

The Digital Economy will allow the Government to monitor and scrutinize every transaction, to freeze digital accounts, and to block “financial flows” to punish disobedience. Operating in a public-private partnership with government, tech billionaires will not only control the nation but will be able to micromanage the worldwide population. Digitized currency is the ultimate instrument of social control. After all, in a cashless society, survival is impossible without access to the digitized economic system. The poor—lacking bank accounts—will suffer disproportionately.

Trillionaire Borg

While the lockdown is a cataclysm for the world economy, it is an opportunity for Gates. By purchasing our devalued assets at a penny on the dollar, Gates’ $100 billion might make him the world’s first trillionaire. But the quarantine is also an opportunity to enlarge his power and domination. Under Gates’ leadership, Microsoft became known as “The Borg” because of his appetite for total market control. Now, Gates seeks to bring all humanity under his boot. His worship of technology and his megalomania threaten our freedoms, our democracy, our biology, our planet, our humanity, and our souls.  Fahrenheit 451Ray Bradbury.

The microwave radiation used for wireless surveillance of the world is not biologically tolerable, especially for developing children. Thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies abundantly document wireless technology’s profound, adverse, physical effects on humans, animals and plants. Sickness and environmental degradation from wireless technology is already widespread. Big Telecom control of U.S. and global regulatory agencies and media and Gates’ financial control of the World Health Organization have allowed a few billionaires to propagate the patent lie that wireless is safe.

Gates’ technological dreams are not biologically sustainable. His Tower of Babel is bound to collapse, with catastrophic impact for lesser humans. It’s time to dismantle the Tower before it’s too late.

======================

Previous articles 

‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’.

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control. The following articles provide evidence.

It’s not Trump but America the left hates

It’s not Trump but America the left hates  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 12 July 2020

Donald Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore on the eve of the Fourth of July was the most important and riveting of his presidency. It was mostly a soaring celebration of America, though with a presidential election just five months away, there were a few partisan jabs at his opponents.

By the standards of contemporary debate it was civil throughout. By Trump’s own normal standards it was positively decorous.

Reaction to it was all but deranged and demonstrates the profound cultural crisis through which the West is passing.

A piece in Foreign Policy, a semi-official journal of liberal internationalism, in all seriousness described the speech as fascist. Fascist!

This bizarre reaction was sadly pretty widespread.

Time magazine said “Trump pushes racial division”. Annie Karni in The New York Times was typical, indeed relatively mild, of much of NYT reaction saying that Trump had delivered a “dark and divisive speech”. Esquire magazine called it “terrifyingly bonkers”. An Associated Press headline said the speech was all about advancing racial division.

Perhaps the most magnificent bit of nonsense of all came in the increasingly deranged Washington Post. It ran a piece saying the speech demonstrated Trump’s “unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white dominion”.

That piece deserves a special Leon Trotsky award for ideological madness because Trump didn’t mention, extol or support any Confederate figure at all. Instead he sang paeans of praise to Abraham Lincoln for abolishing the evil of slavery and constantly affirmed America’s civic universalism.

It goes without saying Trump brings some of the misinterpretation on himself. He has said so many intemperate, foolish, offensive and just plain wrong things that it’s what people have come to expect. At the personal level, Trump is an appalling figure to embody the defence of Western civilisation.

The Room Where It Happened, by Trump’s former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, is a brilliant read, but sobering and even disturbing in its depiction of Trump. Bolton is a lifelong hardline right-wing Republican, a natural America First type but from inside the system. You can discount part of his tone as self serving, though Bolton seems pretty self aware. But you cannot really argue he makes up the incidents where Trump is abusive and foul, or where he simply has no idea what he’s talking about (constantly confusing the president of Afghanistan with his predecessor, thinking Finland is a part of Russia, not knowing Britain is a nuclear power). Most presidencies look ragged from the inside, but this is pretty weird.

However, as well as many foolish things, Trump has said and done brave and even wise things. It is also the case that there is no serious evidence that Trump is a racist. Nonetheless, even if you believe the very worst of Trump, a sensible reaction to the Mount Rushmore speech might have been to argue that while Trump expressed noble and traditional American sentiments in this speech, he frequently doesn’t live up to those sentiments, that he was a hypocrite.

But I suspect we are dealing with something much more troubling than merely the normal Trump Derangement Syndrome. Many of the speech’s critics hate it partly because it expresses traditional American liberalism on issues of race and history. It is the turn away from that liberalism, towards a wholly destructive hatred of the Western project and of all Western history, combined with a profoundly illiberal desire to re-racialise society, that is disturbing in the reaction to Trump’s speech.

The Economist magazine addresses this a bit in this week’s issue. It is important for a moment to situate the Economist culturally and ideologically. The Economist was once an intelligently conservative magazine. It would be wrong to characterise it that way now. It is a strong proponent of markets, and mixed-economy capitalism, and of free trade, but on all social issues it has moved to the progressive side. Nothing wrong with that. Magazines, like people, are entitled to change their minds, change their outlooks. They go through different stages, adopt different identities.

But now on social issues The Economist is a journalistic expression of corporate wokeness. Partly one suspects to emphasise the devoutness of its adherence to the new religions, The Economist is seldom outdone in its detestation of Trump and all his works.

Yet this week, remarkably, The Economist finally finds in itself the wit to denounce the left-wing extremism of aspects of the Black Lives Matter movement and its recent efflorescence in protests. After running through its normal liturgical denunciation of Trump, The Economist actually made an interesting point. The cancel culture and extremists in the racial justice and social justice movements are actually attacking liberalism. It said: “… a dangerous rival approach has emerged from America’s universities. It rejects the liberal notion of progress. It defines everyone by their race, and every action as racist or anti-racist… it is spreading out of the academy and into everyday life. If it supplants liberal values, then intimidation will chill open debate and sow division to the disadvantage of all, black and white.”

That looks like The Economist has been mugged by reality. It’s the first recognition for a long time in that august journal that the threat to liberalism comes from the activist left, the race-centred, history-hating, which nonsensically sees West as the enemy of humanity.

It is just this illiberal spirit that The Economist derides which I suspect animates so much of the denunciation of the Mount Rushmore speech. That is, the Trump haters have not assumed that Trump said something worse than he did and reacted against this. They actually heard what Trump said but have moved to a position where they now denounce the great liberal ideal of abolishing race as a constraint in civic identity, and building on the strengths of our liberal and conservative heritage, while of course always recognising the many times Western societies have failed to live up to their ideals.

I recommend people read Trump’s speech. Mount Rushmore is the site of carved likenesses of four great presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Each of these men had their faults of course, they were, after all, human beings. And each was a creature of their time, no-one can really escape that either. But on any rational assessment each was a friend and enlarger of liberty and each contributed magnificently to the American dream and the American achievement.

Trump partly uses the four men as the frame for his speech, which was certainly crafted by expert speech writers. Consider some of its key passages. Repeatedly, in this speech Trump denounces the evil of slavery and its contradiction of American ideals. He says of Lincoln: “He rose to high office from obscurity, based on a force and clarity of his anti-slavery convictions… Lincoln won the Civil War; he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he led the passage of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery for all time, and ultimately, his determination to preserve our nation and our union cost him his life…giving every ounce of strength that he had to ensure that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, did not perish from the Earth.” Trump cites and praises many African-American heroes.

Frequently, repeatedly, joyfully, Trump cites and celebrates the universalism of the American promise, that the American dream is open to every citizen of every background. He says: “We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion and creed. Every child of every colour – born and unborn – is made in the holy image of God.”

That is not fascism, but traditional liberalism, in this case, if you like, Christian liberalism.

Trump cites Martin Luther King, whose vision he supports.

King did not denounce the American dream. He did not denounce America’s core documents. Rather, in his famous I Have a Dream speech, he asked America to live up to those documents fully. Indeed he began that speech with a heartfelt tribute to Lincoln: “… a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand, (who) signed the Emancipation Declaration. This momentous decree is a great beacon of hope…”

In a powerful formulation, King said he and his followers had come to Washington “to cash a check. When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

It’s pretty clear isn’t it that if King were saying things like that today he would be denounced as a racist, a stooge for colonialism, as someone who refused to acknowledge the structural racism of America and its institutions, as someone who did not understand that, as The New York Times ridiculous 1619 Project has it, the central purpose of America was slavery. King would surely be denounced as threatening the safety of students who might have to listen to such shocking sentiments and he would be subject to the cancel culture.

King was also, like Trump, strongly, vigorously, stridently opposed to violence in demonstrations.

In his famous speech, King instructed: “In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for justice by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence.”

None of this, of course, is remotely to equate the heroic moral leadership of Martin Luther King, which has inspired millions of people across the generations, including me, with the often odious personality of Trump. However, those who style themselves as King’s heirs have become too often progenitors of ideological extremism he would hate.

In attacking Trump for his Mount Rushmore speech they are not just displaying an irrational hatred of a particular political leader, they are actually attacking Trump for espousing the same positions as King himself espoused.

Of course there were some contemporary, partisan, sharp edges to the Trump speech, but nothing remotely racist, or even race specific, nothing remotely offensive.

In his speech, Trump promises that the nation’s monuments to its founders will be protected. He promises that the police will “arrest the rioters”. He does not say protesters should be arrested. This is a vital distinction and one which Trump’s enemies never acknowledge. Barack Obama himself called violent protesters “thugs” and said they discredited the movements they claimed to support.

Republican senator Tom Cotton caused a firestorm by writing an oped in The New York Times in which he argued that violent protesters whom city police forces could not control justified the deployment of active service US military. That was probably a mistaken call at the time, though by no means extreme. But the real moral of the story is that when the newspaper staff revolted and the paper’s leadership went into craven surrender, and then full jihad denunciation of Cotton, they routinely claimed he had called for troops to be used against demonstrators.

These constant elidings and misrepresentations cannot really be seen any longer as accidental. The crime the ultra woke militants of illiberal liberal conformity want to punish is actually failing to support the new civic religion which involves hatred of Western civilisation and hatred of the societies this civilisation has created.

Trump at Mount Rushmore also had some shorter passages condemning the contemporary cancel culture and the left-wing indoctrination of students with hostility to America. In the attacks which claimed Trump was a fascist they claimed Trump was making this up, that no such thing really existed.

Are they kidding?

The West is under profound challenge internally and externally today. The irrational hatred of the West, within the West, is one symptom of a deep malaise. Trump was right to call it out.

GREG SHERIDAN

FOREIGN EDITOR

Greg Sheridan, The Australian’s foreign editor, is one of the nation’s most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio and also writes extensively on culture. He has w… Read more

=====================

As Long As Mass Media Propaganda Exists, Democracy Is A Sham

As Long As Mass Media Propaganda Exists, Democracy Is A Sham  By Caitlin Johnstone, 9 July 2020

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has reportedly found that a majority of Americans believe the completely discredited narrative that the Russian government paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill the occupying forces of the US and its allies in Afghanistan.

“A majority of Americans believe that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan last year amid negotiations to end the war, and more than half want to respond with new economic sanctions against Moscow, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday,” Reuters reports.

“Overall, 60% of Americans said they found reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers to be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ believable, while 21% said they were not credible and the rest were unsure,” says Reuters.

Most Americans believe Russia targeted U.S. soldiers, want sanctions in response, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows https://t.co/NWvdxquRMK pic.twitter.com/t18vMlEovx

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 8, 2020

Those 21 percent are objectively correct: the story is not credible, and it’s not even close. Gareth Porter shows in The Grayzone how the “Bountygate” narrative is so utterly baseless that even US intelligence agencies have dismissed it, Joe Lauria of Consortium News explains how it doesn’t make any sense on its face, and FAIR’s Alan MacLeod breaks down the appalling journalistic malpractice that went into circulating this incredibly thinly sourced story to the mainstream public.

The story advances no solid facts or verified information. What it does advance is pre-existing imperialist agendas like remaining in Afghanistan, killing the last of the remaining nuclear deals with Moscow, and manufacturing public support for new Russia sanctions.

And yet a majority of people believed it, and still believe it. The narrative that Russia paid Taliban fighters to kill occupying forces is now regarded as an established fact in many key circles, despite being backed by literally zero facts.

If people were as objective and adept at critical thinking as we tend to believe we are, the mass media’s unconscionable facilitation of a brazen cold war psyop would by itself have killed off all public trust in the institution of mass news reporting. But people are not as objective and adept at critical thinking as we tend to believe we are. People have many cognitive biases which distort our ability to objectively process information and understand events, including one which causes us to believe something is true just because they’ve heard it said multiple times. This makes us easily susceptible to mass media propaganda, where our encounters with daily news headlines can shape our perception of what’s going on in the world regardless of whether or not those headlines are backed by actual facts.

“Bounty-Gate” is the Pentagon’s main chance to keep the U.S. war in #Afghanistan going for a while longer. Push-back against those in Congress exploiting this fraud is needed to deprive the Pentagon and its allies from succeeding in this scheme. https://t.co/OUPC6IpUgc

— Gareth Porter (@GarethPorter) July 8, 2020

This latest poll is a perfect example of how the plutocrat-owned media manipulate public opinion in the interest of establishment agendas with brazen propaganda campaigns, but it is just the most recent example. Over and over and over again we see public perception of what’s going on distorted by lies inserted into their minds by the corporate news media, like when half a year after the invasion of Iraq seven in ten Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. All it took to trick them into believing this and supporting the invasion was repeatedly mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath, despite there never being any evidence whatsoever for any such thing.

This kind of manipulation is not rare, it is ubiquitous and ongoing. Every single day the plutocratic media are putting ideas in people’s minds which favor the establishment upon which said plutocrats have built their kingdoms, normalizing the insane status quo and manufacturing support for agendas which bolster it. This is not some delusional conspiracy theory, it’s a well-documented fact to which many mainstream journalists have testified.

As long as this remains the case in our society, democracy cannot exist in any meaningful way. As long as a loose alliance of plutocrats and government operatives are able to consistently manipulate the way a critical mass of people think and vote, then you cannot rightly say that the people are in charge of the fate of their nation. If the majority is consistently in alignment with the plutocrats whose outsized media influence enables them to dominate the public narrative, then voting necessarily reflects the will of those plutocrats, not the people.

Even if you changed everything else that is wrong with the current system, nothing would change if the plutocratic class retained its ability to manipulate the way people think and vote. You can fix America’s garbage election integrity, end gerrymandering, even get money out of politics, but as long as the plutocratic class is still using its wealth to manipulate public thought in support of its interests, people would keep voting the way they’re manipulated to vote.

Manipulation is a key ingredient in any long-term abusive relationship, because people don’t tend to stay in abusive situations unless they are manipulated into doing so. This is true whether you’re talking about romantic partnerships, governments, or globe-spanning power structures. We don’t use the power of our numbers to end this abusive relationship where we are at the whim of crushing austerity, exploitative neoliberalism, endless war and rapacious ecocide, because we’re being manipulated into staying.

And, just like with any other abusive relationship, there comes a time to leave before it’s too late. That time is now. We can begin by expanding awareness of what’s really going on, both inwardly in ourselves and outwardly by sharing truthful information with others. In so doing, we stand a chance at making ourselves impossible to propagandize effectively and using our strength in numbers to force real change.

==========================

London Spins Out Of Control As Met Police Abandon Streets

London Spins Out Of Control As Met Police Abandon Streets  By M A Richardson, via TheDuran.com, 7 July 2020

The US and Britain are at their most perilous point in one hundred years. Once stable democratic nation states made great through struggle and suffering to gain comparative freedom at huge sacrifice to their own population are throwing it all away.  The speed and ferocity of the attack is frightening, but this has been building for years, spreading from the 60s onwards through the university teaching  systems, unquestioned. It emerged into the public arena as political correctness as each generation of students became more radical. Then came the final push to silence opposition with wokism, virtue-signalling, identity politics, and now racial division, an aberration of democracy and freedom of speech.

The Trump presidency has been under a continual coup, even before taking office.  Involvement from the top down of Obama and his administration and security services is an inconvenience for the Democrats, and many Republicans feel the same. What it does show, is that at this moment in the history of the United States, the deep state are above the law. We are waiting for Attorney General Barr to prove otherwise, but since he has already stated it is unlikely that Obama or Biden will be called to testify, he has issued a free pass, move along, nothing to see. All is swept aside on a media tide of attacks on democracy and the rule of law by the radical left, as BLM take control and politicians scamper down rabbit holes trying to avoid the buckshot.  Those who control the media control the narrative, never more true than it is today, as truth becomes fiction and fiction fact.

History is no longer the ‘right’ history, facts are no longer facts but interpretations. Our language is corrupted by thought-speak and ‘wrong-thinking’. Intersectionality seeps through to the subconscious of the people as they are dissected, examined and re-assembled from parts into a whole, as independent thought lies discarded on the slab. The monster of BLM has screamed into the world, its children intent on destroying everything that will not acknowledge them, blind, unreasoning, malicious, merciless, they search for the meaning of their own existence and find nothing but their own image staring back from an iPhone.

We are at the turning point. All opposition is being de-platformed, demonetised and silenced by the tyranny of the social media monopolies of Google, Facebook, Twitter, in the great lurch left to totalitarianism.

Our language has been acquired, repossessed and annexed, a grand and despicable M&A, dismembered, rendered useless and sold off to the corporates and big tech.  They are laying off the workforce whom they consider obsolete and no longer useful for their purposes. The world has turned on its dark side, an unrecognisable corruption of reality.  Boris Johnson is presiding over a shift into anarchy. The Labour party cannot win through the ballot box, the BLM are useful to them. The radical left have co-opted and subjugated the old left, they are one and the same, because disorder and destruction are their only route to power, and they are taking it.

As temperatures rise and unrest spreads, London is braced for another week of anarchy.  A combination of  Covid-19 restrictions, a hands-off police policy, and subsequent breakdown of law and order follows years of devolution of police enforcement powers to local authorities, and pushes London towards breakdown.  Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has announced funding cuts to an already undermanned and demoralised front line police force of £110 million over the next 2 years, #BLM defund the police. The country is undergoing a communist insurrection, a cultural marxist revolution indulged and endorsed by the elites. Far left racial divisionists and mainstream media incite violence, pushing the marxist agenda, whilst the rest of the population is so punch- drunk with the speed of the takeover, it does not even recognise that it is about to hit the canvas.

THE TYRANNY OF BLM

BLM is a marketing exercise by the three founders, all trained radical Marxists.  Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors. The public have been played.  No sympathy there. If you put your name or your money to a cause, the least you can do is look it up and see what you are supporting and find out what is behind the hype. Follow the money.

There is bet-hedging from ‘left-light’ political commentators who are afraid to declare the emperor has no clothes. They advocate that it is not BLM and the rise of cultural marxism that we should be worried about, but the rise of the far-right in reaction to it.  The far-right, or simply put, anyone who sees BLM for what they are, a cultural marxist totalitarian power-grab, are not the ones that require people to kneel before them, pull down and deface statues, injure police, the public and public property. BLM are the ones inciting riots through racial division, bullying small children,  calling to abolish the police, and end capitalism and the family. It is time to get off the bench and stop trying to play both sides of the field. It is cowardly and will end in your own demise as all is swept aside by the mob. Come the revolution, and it is coming, you want to know who will hold the line with you and who will run, so best to find out now.

BULLY

At a party in Harrow Road London this week, police were pelted with objects and prevented from entering the area by youths shouting “you’re not coming in”  The police released a statement:

“Following engagement within the local community we are hopeful that crowds are dispersing.”

A quick look on Google translate will tell you this means – ‘they threw stuff at us, so we left’

The message is, don’t bother to call the council or the police, your neighbourhood is now run by youth mobs. The hardest hit by this lawlessness are in the poorest communities, in the council blocks, the housing association accommodation.  The gentrified can sell up and ship out with their kids, the same kids advocating and encouraging the cultural revolution and racial division that is destroying London. The same kids that will be the politicians of tomorrow.

Local authorities have the power to issue ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) noise abatement orders, and to seize equipment, but in most instances do not have the manpower or the resources to do so. They are the front line community police for out of control raves and parties, and they are the ones that engage with the local community and youth offenders and understand what is happening on the ground.  Most no longer operate ‘out of hour services’ which is a nonsense, since that is exactly the time they are needed. All that can be done is for a complaint to be lodged after the fact. The police rarely engage with locals, instead they have a faceless, distant, centralised Met police call centre.

Parliament have made mass gatherings and peaceful protests unlawful for the moment, but there is an exception.   Northumbria police issued this statement yesterday:

“We’ll be in attendance to facilitate a planned Black Lives Matter vigil at Keel Square in #Sunderland tonight.  A Section 14 order is in place forbidding any other public assembly, including counter-protests, to ensure the public’s safety.” – Northumbria Police

This was echoed yesterday in London as more subsets of BLM demonstrators were allowed into central London in a  Black Trans Lives Matter rally. Thousands of activists marched through central London in place of Pride celebrations that had been cancelled due to Covid-19 health fears. Banners of “White silence is violence” were held above the crowd, and a sign outside Parliament defaced, crossing out ‘Parliament’ and replacing it with “racists”. The law is no longer applied equally. Radical left marxists running BLM take over the centre of London each weekend and grow emboldened, realising the law does not apply to them.

London 16 Jun 2020:

“MPs have unanimously approved the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2020. This new law bans mass gatherings in London in a fight to stop the spread of the deadly virus”

In Westminster, the government in their elite London bubble, seem unwilling to admit to the sense of unease amongst the public as law-abiding citizens are beginning to wonder if they even cares, They know that Sadiq Khan is intent on causing as much pain as he can to the population of London.  It is likely the police will abandon the streets if a serious riot breaks out.  Londoners see this as a real possibility, it has happened before.

The last sustained rioting across London was sparked by the death of Mark Duggan in 2011. This saw disaffected youths vandalising property, looting, and assaulting people. Police were unable to respond to the speed of the rioting or to the numbers on the streets. The disorder spread to other parts of the UK and showed the power of social media to ignite and inflame tensions.  An astonishing 3,000 people were arrested and 1,000 criminal charges brought for various crimes related to the riots. It was anarchy.  There were 5 deaths and 16 injured as a direct result.

These riots are still fresh in the mind due to their speed and ferocity and the opportunistic and senseless nature of the crimes committed.  The same atmosphere is building, this time based on the BLM righteous rage and racial division agenda. If the police cannot shut down a party, they cannot contain a riot.

The BLM construct lights a fire under race relations, deliberately so. The law-abiding citizen is unprotected and demonised.  It is woke politics on steroids.

“Developing and delivering training, police monitoring and strategies for the abolition of police.”    –  gofundmeUK BLM 

BLM has seeped into all aspects of our lives, online, onto the streets and into the language. It is a very aggressive form of indoctrination and advertising, it is impossible to get away from on any media platform, television, radio, advertising and is being relentlessly pushed by corporates.  The premise is, if you are white you are a racist. BLM is controlling the news narrative.  The British and American public are under attack by a cult largely endorsed by their governments who, instead of defending the people that voted them into power, take the side of the mob.

We are living through a transition to totalitarianism. The attacks are coming in waves, each wave growing in intensity, consuming and feeding off the last. They carry with them the worst disruptors of society of which there are many. They are active at demonstrations,  as trained jihadists infiltrate and disrupt alongside Antifa and BLM activists.

In America, heavily armed populist militia groups are growing and forming a coalition with the police, preparing for the fight-back.  In the UK, there is no second amendment right to bear arms, so citizens are at the mercy of government policy.  The police and government are working against their own people, the only way to fight back is to move out and find relative safety, this is what is happening in London.

Left wing councils all over the UK are forcing agreement to marxist agenda. This is a battle between the people vs the elite political class. There is deep suspicion of all that they represent, government, corporate, education, media, church, all seem designed to silence those they claim to represent and to further their own, centralised globalist ideology. BLM are just another branch of this elite. This is Groundhog Day, the same argument that was played out after the Brexit referendum, that democracy does not matter, this is just the next battle in a far more extreme, pervasive and corrupt form.

This is a race war incited by woke identity politics, facilitated by middle class white malcontents and snowflakes, overindulged by their parents and allowed to continue tantrums far beyond their teens, encouraged and enabled by neoliberal university educators and group-think on social media. It is an assault on the soul of nations, aided by domestic terrorists with the blessing of big government. It is the opposite of the spirit of Brexit, the opposite of independent thought. It is against the rule of law, the constitution, it is the destruction of the West by a decadent and controlling elite completely out of touch with its own people.

On television, white primary school kids are humiliated and confused as they are asked to explain their white privilege.  This is the ultimate endorsement of bullying by a political elite.  BLM have ignited a race war, it is being played out in schools, on the streets and in the political arena, we are being told we must ‘see colour’, to actively encourage division by colour. There is no room for discussion or debate with this hypersensitive Facebook generation who are incapable of having an opinion unless it is ‘liked’ by consensus. Racial profiling is being endorsed across all mainstream media platforms.

Both Britain and America have governments that are weak and vulnerable, both countries are ripe for the taking. Shaun King could not have staged this uprising more skilfully, no doubt he has a strong hand in this and directs from his throne at Harvard Law School. Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick do his bidding.

Norman Brennan, Director of the Law and Order Foundation, on Talk Radio London said of the anarchy in Britain:

“We are barely able to police everyday issues. We have lost 22,000 officers, 4,000 of them in the Met. Just look how that has depleted backing up their own colleagues dealing with any public disorders that we are beginning to see on our streets, almost daily now. It’s embarrassing, I feel for my colleagues. In thirty-one years of policing I can’ t recall a single time that I ran away from an incident. A). I knew I would be getting back-up and B). we had this sort of fearlessness amongst us that the criminal element were not allowed to run riot, they were not allowed to rule the streets. That’s our job, and we rule the streets on behalf of society. What the Commissioner does {Cressida Dick}, and she does it all the time, is to close it down, you can see her political stance.

What public order incident that breaks out on the streets, most probably in London,  is going to ignite wide scale public disorder throughout Britain? It takes one. At this moment in time, it’s like a litmus paper. Which incident is going to light it?”

BLM can only feel encouraged, just like a spoilt child testing how far they can go until the adult in the room says, no more.  The problem is, there are no adults in the room.

Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are full of platitudes, but they do nothing. This is no longer a Conservative party that are strong on public order, this is a Conservative Party far left of Tony Blair.  A party out of touch with its core voters, so much so that all it can do is steal the ideas from another party to win an election, as it did from Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party in 2019.  It seems to think that to deliver on Brexit is enough, but this terrible unease that has come over the country is at boiling point, as the law-abiding citizen is chastised and knocked back into silence again and again.

In London, you can feel the tension on the ground, simmering, mostly unsaid, but it is there. The elites in the London bubble don’t see this, and so it festers. They have no sense of place, only a sense of self.  For them it is an experiment in socialism, for the public it is a crisis. When a country has to take up arms to protect itself, will such a diversity of communities, such disparity in wealth, of ideas, of religions, be able to come together to defeat the enemy?  Will it even be able to identify who that enemy is when the government and their agencies, so contemptuous of the public, and yet so naive themselves, cannot.  That question will be answered soon.  The public will get no help, the elites have chosen to go to war against their own people. They have taken to a serpent to their bosom, an insidious viper that is sowing the seeds of racial unrest.  It is a construct by forces wishing to subvert and cause pain and to take power over those already weak and demoralised from Covid-19.  A woke, cultural revolution of media and government institutions against all that the British public hold dear.

“I believe that the mainstream media in Britain are stoking and inciting people to be disorderly on the streets of Britain. It’s almost as though they would love it if there were wide-scale public disorder.” – Norman Brennan

More than this, it is the aim of BLM, Antifa and the increasingly marxist socialist left, many of whom preside in Westminster, to cause exactly that.  The public are at this very moment being beaten into submission.

Anyone who lives in London becomes streetwise very fast, and stories of citizens being marched to an ATM at knife point are common. These are not petty crimes.  In one of the largest local authorities in London run by a Labour council for many years, their crime enforcement team has been reduced to 4 for a population of approx 324,000. The need by government to reduce perceived crime has led to such madness. This hollows out the middle class who are moving away from London as they feel it is no longer a safe place to live or raise children. Judging from the battles in some of the most gentrified and highly-priced boroughs in London, they are right.

Whilst most citizens are still under restrictions in ‘bubbles’ of social contact, others are totally immune to either enforcement or prosecution. Priti Patel talks tough but if she were serious, she would fire Cressida Dick. Alongside Sadiq Kahn, the marxist agitator who despises his own country, they are killing London, without law and order on the streets, and law and order applied equally, there is nothing. They are poisonous.

This overtly racist tribalist drive to divide the cities is yet another realignment of the elites. Those outside the London bubble indoctrination zone are not buying into any of this and grow more sceptical by the day.  This is a choice. You chose civilisation, free speech, the constitution and the rule of law, you defend it vociferously, or you let it all crumble to dust and be taken over by the radical left, who will have power over you until death.

===========================

Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016

More must-read articles

The current focus of this post relates to the Coronavirus chaos, vaccines and implications. Note: Many more articles follow these latest nine.

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

 

Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All  By Mike Whitney, via Unz Review, 12 July 2020

 Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?

Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? And that’s why Sweden has been so harshly criticized in the media, because they refused to do what everyone else was doing. They refused to adopt a policy that elites now universally support, a policy that scares people into cowering submission. The Swedish model is a threat to that approach because it allows people to maintain their personal freedom even in the midst of a global pandemic. Ruling class elites don’t want that, that is not in their interests. What they want is for the people to meekly accept the rules and conditions that lead to their eventual enslavement. That’s the real objective, complete social control, saving lives has nothing to do with it. Sweden opposed that approach which is why Sweden has to be destroyed. It’s that simple.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with Sweden’s fatality rate, which is higher than some and lower than others. (Sweden has 543 deaths per million, which means roughly 1 death in every 2,000 people.) But like every other country, the vast majority of Swedish fatalities are among people 70 years and older with underlying health conditions. (“90% of the country’s deaths have been among those over 70.”) Sweden was not successful in protecting the people in its elderly care facilities, so large numbers of them were wiped out following the outbreak. Sweden failed in that regard and they’ve admitted they failed. Even so, the failures of implementation do not imply that the policy is wrong. Quite the contrary. Sweden settled on a sustainable policy, that keeps the economy running, preserves an atmosphere of normality, and exposes its young, low-risk people to the infection, thus, moving the population closer to the ultimate goal of “herd immunity”.

[ZH: in Sweden (pop. 10.25m) – where there was no lockdown, huge international criticism of its strategy, and one of the highest fatalities per head in the world – only 70 people under 49 years old have died of Covid-19, out of 5,482 total virus deaths (1.3%) so far. For context, average annual deaths in Sweden over the last 5 years for under-49-year-olds have been 3,417.  ]

Presently, Sweden is very close to reaching herd immunity which is a condition in which the majority have developed antibodies that will help to fend-off similar sars-covid infections in the future. Absent a vaccine, herd immunity is the best that can be hoped for. It ensures that future outbreaks will be less disruptive and less lethal. Take a look at this excerpt from an article at the Off-Guardian which helps to explain what’s really going on:

“Sweden’s health minister understood that the only chance to beat COVID-19 was to get the Swedish population to a Herd Immunity Threshold against COVID-19, and that’s exactly what they have done…

The Herd Immunity Threshold (“HIT”) for COVID-19 is between 10-20%

This fact gets less press than any other. Most people understand the basic concept of herd immunity and the math behind it. In the early days, some public health officials speculated that COVID-19’s HIT was 70%. Obviously, the difference between a HIT of 70% and a HIT of 10-20% is dramatic, and the lower the HIT, the quicker a virus will burn out as it loses the ability to infect more people, which is exactly what COVID-19 is doing everywhere, including the U.S, which is why the death curve above looks the way it looks.

Scientists from Oxford, Virginia Tech, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, all recently explained the HIT of COVID-19 in this paper:

We searched the literature for estimates of individual variation in propensity to acquire or transmit COVID-19 or other infectious diseases and overlaid the findings as vertical lines in Figure 3. Most CV estimates are comprised between 2 and 4, a range where naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune….

Naturally acquired herd immunity to COVID-19 combined with earnest protection of the vulnerable elderly – especially nursing home and assisted living facility residents — is an eminently reasonable and practical alternative to the dubious panacea of mass compulsory vaccination against the virus.

This strategy was successfully implemented in Malmo, Sweden, which had few COVID-19 deaths by assiduously protecting its elder care homes, while “schools remained open, residents carried on drinking in bars and cafes, and the doors of hairdressers and gyms were open throughout.

One of the most vocal members of the scientific community discussing COVID-19’s HIT is Stanford’s Nobel-laureate Dr. Michael Levitt. Back on May 4, he gave this great interview to the Stanford Daily where he advocated for Sweden’s approach of letting COVID-19 spread naturally through the community until you arrive at HIT. He stated:

If Sweden stops at about 5,000 or 6,000 deaths, we will know that they’ve reached herd immunity, and we didn’t need to do any kind of lockdown. My own feeling is that it will probably stop because of herd immunity. COVID is serious, it’s at least a serious flu. But it’s not going to destroy humanity as people thought.

Guess what? That’s exactly what happened. As of today, 7 weeks after his prediction, Sweden has 5,550 deaths. In this graph, you can see that deaths in Sweden PEAKED when the HIT was halfway to its peak (roughly 7.3%) and by the time the virus hit 14% it was nearly extinguished.”

(“Second wave? Not even close“, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

In other words, Sweden is rapidly approaching the endgame which means that restrictions can be dropped entirely and normal life can resume. They will have maintained their dignity and freedom while the rest of the world hid under their beds for months on end. They won’t have to reopen their primary schools because they never shut them down to begin with. Numerous reports indicate that young children are neither at risk nor do they pass the virus to others. Most Americans don’t know this because the propaganda media has omitted the news from their coverage. Here’s a clip from the National Review which helps to explain:

Kari Stefansson, CEO of the Icelandic company deCODE genetics in Reykjavík, studied the spread of COVID-19 in Iceland with Iceland’s Directorate of Health and the National University Hospital. His project has tested 36,500 people; as of this writing,

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”

(“Icelandic Study: ‘We Have Not Found a Single Instance of a Child Infecting Parents.’“, National Review)

This is just one of many similar reports from around the world. Most of the schools in Europe have already reopened and lifted restrictions on distancing and masks. Meanwhile, in the US, the reopening of schools has become another contentious political issue pitting Trump against his Democrat adversaries who are willing to sacrifice the lives of schoolchildren to prevent the president from being reelected. It’s a cynical-counterproductive approach that reveals the vindictiveness of the people who support it. In an election year, everything is politics. (Watch Tucker Carlson’s short segment on “Kids cannot afford to stay locked down.“)

Here’s a question for you: Have you ever wondered why the virus sweeps through the population and then seemingly dissipates and dies out? In fact, the virus doesn’t simply die-out, it runs out of people to infect. But how can that be when only 1 of 7 people will ever contract the virus?

The answer is immunity, either natural immunity or built up immunity from other Sars-Covid exposure. Here’s more from the Off Guardian piece:

“Scientists are now showing evidence that up to 81% of us can mount a strong response to COVID-19 without ever having been exposed to it before:

Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed preexisting T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity.

This alone could explain WHY the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) is so much lower for COVID-19 than some scientists thought originally, when the number being talked about was closer to 70%. Many of us have always been immune!

(“Second wave? Not even close”, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

What does it mean?

It means that Fauci and the idiots in the media have been lying to us the whole time. It means that Covid-19 is not a totally new virus for which humans have no natural immunity or built-in protection. Covid is a derivative of other infections which is why the death toll isn’t alot higher. Check this out from the BBC:

“People testing negative for coronavirus antibodies may still have some immunity, a study has suggested. For every person testing positive for antibodies, two were found to have specific T-cells which identify and destroy infected cells. This was seen even in people who had mild or symptomless cases of Covid-19..

This could mean a wider group have some level of immunity to Covid-19 than antibody testing figures, like those published as part of the UK Office for National Statistics Infection Survey, suggest…..And these people should be protected if they are exposed to the virus for a second time.”

(“Coronavirus: Immunity may be more widespread than tests suggest“, BBC)

Now, I realize that there’s some dispute about immunity, but there shouldn’t be. If you contract the virus, you either won’t get it again or you’ll get a much milder case. And if immunity doesn’t exist, then we’re crazy to waste our time trying to develop a vaccine, right?

What the science tells us is that immunity does exist and the reason the vast majority of people didn’t get the infection— is not because they locked themselves indoors and hid behind the sofa– but because they already have partial immunity either from their genetic makeup or from previous exposure to Sars-CoV-2 which was identified in 2002.

It’s worth repeating that the reason everyone was so scared about Covid originally was because it was hyped as a “novel virus”, completely new with no known cure or natural protection. That was a lie that was propagated by Fauci and his dissembling Vaccine Mafia, all of who are responsible for the vast destruction to the US economy, the unprecedented spike in unemployment, and the obliteration of tens of thousands of small businesses.

As the author points out, we should have known from the incident on the Diamond Princess (Cruise Liner) that immunity was far more widespread than previously thought. Readers might recall that only 17% of the people on board tested Covid-positive, “despite an ideal environment for mass spread, implying 83% of the people were somehow protected from the new virus.”

Think about that for a minute. All of the passengers were 60 years old or older, but only 17% caught the virus. Why?

Immunity, that’s why. What else could it be? Cross immunity, natural immunity, or SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity. Whatever you want to call it, it exists and it explains why the vast majority of people will not get the highly-contagious Covid no matter what they do.

It’s also worth pointing out that even according to the CDC’s own statistics, the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is a mere 0.26% whereas “According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).” (“Facts about Covid-19”, Swiss Policy Research)

Bottom of Form

So the death rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in every 500 (who contract the virus) to 1 in every 1,000. How can any rational person shut down a $21 trillion economy and order 340 million people into quarantine, based on the fact that 1 in every thousand people (mostly old and infirm) might die from an infection?? That was a act of pure, unalloyed Madness for which the American people will pay dearly for years to come. Once again, the US response was crafted by people who were promoting their own narrow political, social and economic agenda, not acting in the interests of the American people. We should expect more from our leaders than this.

So what does all of this say about the sharp spike in Covid positive cases in the south and the chances of a “second wave”?

There’s not going to be a second wave (The massive BLM protests in NY city has not produced any uptick in deaths, because NY has already achieved herd immunity. In contrast, Florida will undoubtedly experience more fatalities because it has not yet reached HIT or the Herd Immunity Threshold. Cases are increasing because younger- low-risk people are circulating more freely and because testing has increased by many orders of magnitude. At the same time, deaths continue to go down.

On Wednesday, US new cases rose to an eye-watering 62,000 in one day while deaths are down 75% from the April peak. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because the pattern has been the same as in countries around the world. The trajectory of infections was mapped out long ago by UK epidemiologist and statistician, William Farr. Take a look:

“Farr shows us that once peak infection has been reached then it will roughly follow the same symmetrical pattern on the downward slope. However, under testing and variations in testing regimes means we have no way of knowing when the peak of infections occurred. In this situation, we should use the data on deaths to predict the peak. There is a predicted time lag from infection to COVID deaths of approximately 21 to 28 days.

Once peak deaths have been reached we should be working on the assumption that the infection has already started falling in the same progressive steps. …

Farr, also illustrated that those who are the most ‘mortal die out’, and in a pandemic are those in most need of shielding….(So, Farr saw the wisdom of the Swedish approach a full 180 years ago!)

In the midst of a pandemic, it is easy to forget Farr’s Law, and think the number infected will just keep rising, it will not. Just as quick as measures were introduced to prevent the spread of infection we need to recognize the point at which to open up society and also the special measures due to ‘density’ that require special considerations. But most of all we must remember the message Farr left us: what goes up must come down.”

(“COVID-19: William Farr’s way out of the Pandemic”, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine)

What this tells us is that the fatality rate is a more reliable barometer of what is taking place than the spike in new cases. And what the death rates signals is that the virus is on its last legs. We are not seeing the onset of a second wave, but the gradual ending of the first. Also, the fact that tens of thousands of young people are contracting Covid-19 without experiencing any pain or discomfort, confirms that immunity is widespread. This is a very positive development.

Here’s how Dr. John Thomas Littell, MD, who is President of the County Medical Society, and Chief of Staff at the Florida Hospital, summed it up in a letter to the editor of the Orlando Medical News, He said:

“Why did we as a society stop sending our children to schools and camps and sports activities? Why did we stop going to work and church and public parks and beaches? Why did we insist that healthy persons “stay at home” – rather than observing the evidence-based, medically prudent method of identifying those who were sick and isolating them from the rest of the population – advising the sick to “stay at home” and allowing the rest of society to function normally.”

(“Second wave? Not even close”, JB Handley, The Off-Guardian)

Why? Because we were misled by Doctor Fauci and the Vaccine Gestapo, that’s why. In contrast, Sweden shrugged off the dire predictions and fearmongering, and “got it right the first time.”

Hurrah for Sweden!

==========================

A stock-take of New Zealand’s management of Covid-19

A stock-take of New Zealand’s management of Covid-19  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZ Centre for Political Research, 10 July 2020

At Labour’s annual conference last weekend, Covid-19 dominated Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s address: “Our strong health response now gives us an economic head start, the ability to move from responding to Covid-19, to recovering and rebuilding… So today my ask of you is simple. Don’t put on the brakes when now more than ever is the time that we need to speed up… let’s keep up the momentum… Let’s keep rebuilding.”

The Prime Minister outlined the steps her Government has taken to help the economy recover from the hit caused when she imposed ‘the strictest constraints placed on New Zealanders in modern history’. A record $50 billion in borrowing has been providing wage subsidies, loan guarantees, job creation, re-training, and additional welfare support – leaving $20 billion of unallocated spending to ‘assist the recovery’. And while the generous funding pledges now being announced almost daily do not amount to “treating” under the Electoral Act, the scale and proximity to the election are most irregular.

With the PM pitching for a second term on the basis of her track record of managing the Covid-19 crisis, let’s do a quick stocktake of how the two main parties have responded to pandemics.

John Key’s National Government faced the swine flu pandemic in 2009, which affected up to 1.4 billion people world-wide and caused 600,000 deaths, while Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government has, of course, been dealing with Covid-19, which, at this stage, has 12 million notified cases and 550,000 deaths.

Swine flu is caused by the H1N1 influenza virus and the pandemic, which originated in Mexico, lasted for around 19 months. Altogether, it was estimated that of the 430,000 symptomatic cases of H1N1 in New Zealand, around 116,000 visited GPs, some 1,100 were hospitalised, and 119 patients were admitted to intensive care units. Of the forty-nine deaths attributed to the disease, 86 percent had underlying health complications, most notably, respiratory illnesses, obesity, and substance abuse.

To deal with the pandemic, the National Government adopted the Ministry of Health’s Influenza Pandemic Plan – a mitigation strategy designed to manage an outbreak in such a way as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, whilst reducing the impact on society and the economy. While border controls were introduced, and some schools and businesses temporarily closed to reduce the spread of the disease, there was minimum economic and social disruption.

Fast-forward to 2020.

When reports of the spread of Covid-19 emerged in January, the Ministry of Health’s Influenza Pandemic Plan was again enacted. Border controls were introduced, work began on testing and tracing, and an Alert Level system was developed.

By mid-March, with fewer than 50 reported cases and no deaths, but more New Zealanders arriving home from infected areas, the Ministry of Health recommended that the country move to Alert Level 2 for a month. This involved stricter border controls, the introduction of social distancing and good hygiene measures, increased testing and tracing, a restriction on gatherings to 100 people, and a recommendation that those at the greatest risk from the disease – namely the elderly and anyone with underlying health conditions – take extra care.

Two days after introducing Level 2, the Prime Minister, warning of tens of thousands of deaths, ordered the country to Level 3 for two days, and then to Level 4 for a month.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator former Cabinet Minister Barry Brill has analysed the Ardern Government’s response to the pandemic and reminds us how the Prime Minister over-rode the Ministry of Health’s recommendation for “a 30-day pause at Level 2” with her Captain’s Call to lock the country down:

“The Prime Minister impulsively chose to disregard this official advice and instead leaped to the world’s most masochist restrictions – the Lockdown – with the resounding battle-cry of ‘go hard, go early’, and hang the expense!

“Political instincts and theatre easily trumped all the evidence-based science. There was no cost-benefit analysis of any kind. The PM’s historic Captain’s Call was apparently influenced by alarming forecasts from three academic computer models – one from the Imperial College of London, one from Otago University, and one from Auckland University… In announcing her extreme Lockdown decision, Ms Ardern signalled that ‘the worst case scenario is simply intolerable’. All three unvalidated models have since been thoroughly discredited by both peer reviews and real-world events.”

Barry reminds us that in spite of the media and others treating the Prime Minister as a hero for keeping us safe, that is not the reality. He argues that Jacinda Ardern’s Lockdown was “the worst policy decision ever and almost surely resulted in a net loss of New Zealand lives… In retrospect, there is no evidence that our extreme Lockdown saved the life of a single New Zealander.”

We certainly know that in spite of the frail elderly being clearly identified as the group most vulnerable to Covid-19 – especially those in rest homes – Jacinda Ardern’s lockdown wasn’t able to keep them safe. Almost three-quarters of the country’s 22 deaths were of rest home residents.

While they died in spite of the lockdown, many other New Zealanders died as a result of the lockdown: mothers and babies lost their lives due to the disruption in regular health care; gravely ill people were too afraid of the virus to seek medical help from doctors or hospitals; suicides were triggered by financial ruin caused by the lockdown; cancer sufferers were unable to access life-saving tests, operations, and treatment.

Many deaths never made the headlines – like the case of a frail elderly gentleman with a chronically sore foot who lived alone but had friends who ensured he ate properly and took care of his foot. Without their support, by the end of the lockdown he had developed gangrene and died just a few weeks later – a victim of the lockdown.

Governing a country means carefully weighing up policies to ensure the damage caused by unintended consequences do not outweigh the benefits being sought. While government agencies usually provide Cost-Benefit Analyses and Regulatory Impact Statements to outline the pros and cons of policy options, as well as identifying costs and risks, Jacinda Ardern used no such analyses to inform her lockdown decision.

In fact, a new report from the OECD, which has analysed the effectiveness of the responses of various countries to the Covid-19 pandemic – not only in keeping infection and death rates low but also in minimising economic and social disruption – has ranked New Zealand ninth, with South Korea first, Latvia second, and Australia third.

Those highly ranked countries relied more on stringent isolation and quarantine measures, border controls, comprehensive testing and tracing, and good hygiene and social distancing practices, rather than on harsh lockdown restrictions.

This week’s news that Britain is opening its borders to 70 countries with returning passengers not required to self-isolate, highlights a significant flaw in Labour’s Covid-19 response.

Instead of following the Ministry of Health’s plan to manage the virus – as John Key had done during the swine flu pandemic – Jacinda Ardern decided on ‘elimination’. As a result most New Zealanders have developed no immunity to the virus. In an increasingly infected world, that will never be able to eliminate Covid-19, the Prime Minister’s strategy – which depends on our borders remaining closed – has left New Zealanders isolated and extremely vulnerable.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark along with Sir Peter Gluckman, a former Prime Minister’s Science Advisor, and former Air New Zealand chief Rob Fyfe believe that this is unsustainable and they argue that New Zealand needs to ‘re-engage with the world’: “Just after COVID hit our shores, initial discussions centred on adopting a ‘flattening the curve’ strategy. This involved accepting there would be some influx of disease, but by using behavioural and hygiene measures, viral transmission would be slowed and our hospital system would not be overloaded.

“But soon after cases started appearing, a clear shift in strategy was made – sometimes expressed as ‘keep it out, stamp it out’. In epidemiological terms, elimination of the virus became the goal. But it required huge effort and sacrifice by all New Zealanders – the burden of which will continue to echo for many years.”

They ask, “Is New Zealand prepared to hold itself in its state of near-total isolation for the indefinite future?” Other countries “have not adopted the elimination strategy. While we pin our hopes on a vaccine, it could be much further away than the hype suggests. Can we afford to wait out another year, two years, or even more in almost total physical isolation? And at what cost? This is not just affecting tourism and export education, but also the many ways in which New Zealand projects and leverages its place in the world.”

They conclude that unless New Zealand has global connectivity “we will rapidly progress to a position of relative disadvantage”.

These are important questions to which our Prime Minister has few answers.

It’s becoming clear that around the world countries are now beginning to treat Covid-19 as ‘just another flu’, shifting to a management strategy so life can return to “normal”.

That new normal comes with caveats of course, such as good hygiene and sensible social distancing – as well as facemask use in an increasing number of countries. Since the majority of infected people are now known to be asymptomatic, facemask use in public is seen as an effective way of helping to stop the spread of the virus.

It is something that many New Zealanders called for, but the Director General of Health refused to recommend their use – no doubt because of insufficient stocks of masks.

Professor Mark Woolhouse, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh recommends that since Covid-19 is ‘not going away any time soon, if at all’, alternative approaches are now needed: “The chances of dying from Covid-19 are at least 10,000 times greater for the over-75s than the under-15s. Our priority should be to protect the old and others at greatest risk.”

He believes, “When the reckoning comes we may well find the cure turned out to be far worse than the disease. I fear history will judge lockdowns as a monumental mistake on a global scale.”

It is becoming increasingly accepted that countries that are trying to “keep the virus out” are doing a grave disservice to their citizens.

Oxford University’s epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta believes that closing borders in the long term is unsustainable: “You can only lock down for so long unless you choose to be in isolation for eternity so that’s not a good solution. Being self-congratulatory, ‘we have kept it out’, is misplaced.”

She says that instead of lockdowns, governments should be focussing their energies on shielding the elderly and those with comorbidities to protect them as much as possible. She also warns, “There is no way lockdowns can eliminate the virus … and so it’s not at all surprising once you lift lockdown in areas it will flare up again. In places where it has already swept through, a proportion of people are immune and you are not seeing it come back.”

So while in 2009 John Key followed the Ministry of Health’s pandemic plan and the country moved on once the swine flu epidemic had abated, in 2020, Jacinda Ardern ignored the warning that eliminating flu viruses is impossible in the long term and imposed such harsh State controls that ‘fortress New Zealand’ has become our reality.

As the election approaches and our future hangs in limbo, the major parties are asking voters to ‘trust’ them to manage the country out of the difficulties we now face, including massive debt, skyrocketing unemployment, collapsing businesses, and chaotic border controls.

Meanwhile, seemingly oblivious to this crisis, Labour’s probable coalition partner, the Green Party, is proposing a tax policy that would completely undermine economic recovery through an annual wealth tax on everything, income tax increases, higher minimum wages, and a guaranteed income for those not in employment that would reduce the incentive to work.

Since Labour hasn’t ruled it out, New Zealand’s future could be even worse than we had thought!

==========================

Read it and weep: sorry tale of a Covid catastrophe

Read it and weep. Sorry tale of a Covid catastrophe  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 6 July 2020

When the history of COVID-19 is written, it will be a sorry tale of ­ineptitude at the highest levels of world medicine — how global politics, cover-ups and fashionable causes left the world, Taiwan aside, lamentably unprepared for an inevitable pandemic.

The World Health Organisation is the United Nations agency primarily responsible for inter­national public health, yet its record is disturbing. It is accused of medical malpractice for knowingly promoting useless malaria drugs which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of African children. Along with the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, it covered up UN culpability in a Haitian cholera epidemic, responsible for more than 10,000 deaths. And despite Zimbabwe’s life expectancy plummeting from 61 to 44 in less than two decades, it appointed Zimbabwean despot Robert Mugabe a “goodwill ambassador”.

This unprincipled mindset seems to have permeated medical research. In an article, The Truth Wears Off: Is There Something Wrong With The Scientific Method?, The New Yorker warns that “all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed scientific findings have started to look uncertain”.

Biologist Richard Palmer from the University of Alberta believes scientists selectively report data, disregarding what they don’t want to see. “Our beliefs are a sort of blindness,” he says.

Stanford University epidemiology professor John Ionnidis expresses “increasing concern that most current published research findings are false”. In an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, he looked at the 49 most-cited clinical research studies in three major medical journals and discovered that of 34 replicated claims, 41 per cent had effectively been falsified.

The Wall Street Journal cites a dramatic upward trend in retraction notices, including for fraud. The latest high-profile withdrawal is a hydroxychloroquine study in The Lancet. HCQ has become highly politicised since President Donald Trump used it as a COVID-19 prophylactic. Indeed, despite many doctors claiming significant success with early onset coronavirus patients, the FDA has banned its use in the US.

Does politicisation of medicine explain why, despite the 2002 SARS experience, preparation for COVID-19 was so derisory? Was the pandemic declaration delayed until March for political reasons? According to the South China Morning Post, Chinese authorities knew of multiple coronavirus cases in early November. They ­officially advised the WHO on ­December 31. A month later, an international health emergency was announced.

That interval gave Beijing sufficient time to complete new hospitals, stock up on medical equipment and prepare a propaganda offensive. Even then, the emergency declaration was accompanied by a disarming advisory that: “Based on the facts on the ground, containment is possible.”

Taiwan is not a WHO member. It dismissed the official line as ­disinformation and rapidly implemented its own plans. In January, when Beijing imposed a lockdown in Wuhan, Taipei closed its borders to mainland Chinese arrivals. With a similar population to ours [Australia], it has recorded seven deaths.

Similar border closures quickly followed in Australia, Singapore and the US, earning a WHO rebuke for breeding “fear and ­stigma”, and causing “more harm than good”.

Like polite members of a college, most countries dutifully downplayed the unmistakeable warning signs, insisting that their early COVID-19 responses were based on the “best medical advice” — in other words, based on WHO-Chinese propaganda.

It’s why New York Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot recommended people “not to change any plans due to misinformation spreading on coronavirus”. She, and mayor Bill de Blasio, who encouraged New Yorkers to “Get out on the town, despite coronavirus”, simply followed the WHO script. Like London mayor Sadiq Khan, who reassured Londoners they “faced no risk” on public transport.

It explains why health authorities were silent when the Italian government bowed to the WHO’s warnings about racism by not quarantining thousands of returning Chinese workers, and why Spain suppressed publication of new COVID-19 cases to maximise participation in feminist marches.

Once the epidemic’s seriousness became impossible to hide, cautious mitigation became draconian suppression overnight. Alarmist simulation models appeared from nowhere. The Imperial College London predicted there would be 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million in the US. Australia’s deputy chief medical officer warned the best we could expect was 50,000 deaths out of five million infections. When was this known?

The prospect of hospitals being overwhelmed panicked governments everywhere. Apocalyptic projections were accepted as Holy Writ. Fear crowded out critical examination of the evidence, let alone proper consideration of the massive, potentially more harmful, economic and social consequences of prolonged lockdowns.

A pop-up hospital was built in Canberra and respirators and ­additional beds were hastily procured. In the event, the beds and respirators overwhelmed patients. Despite dire predictions, just more than 100 Australians, 44,000 Britons and 132,000 Americans have died so far.

Surely such a dismal track record calls for caution? But no. Ahead of Black Lives Matter marches, politics intervened again. A Seattle public health spokes­person rationalised: “We can’t let COVID-19 distract us from our resolve and show how it is possible to break down the historical institutional racism that affects our communities every day.”

Victorian authorities also put this “worthy cause” ahead of public health. Having translated social distancing rules into 53 languages and fined thousands of individuals for breaking them, the government exempted 10,000 Melbourne BLM protesters from prosecution. Now, a rattled Premier Daniel Andrews is desperate to ensure that this double standard and the government’s bungled quarantining and testing protocols are not linked to the latest spike in infections.

The sad truth is, COVID-19 was foreseeable and, potentially, preventable. It has exposed a medical-political complex unsuited to its primary duty of protecting public health. Even in democracies, when ideology calls, governments have demonstrated scant regard for the wellbeing of those they represent. As a consequence, this pandemic has inflicted on a trusting world needless deaths and unnecessary economic hardship.

It is a very sorry tale indeed.

=========================

The Brave New Normal

The Brave New Normal  By CJ Hopkins, anti-empire.com, 2 July 2020

Hello Brave New Normal Brought to You by Zombie Totalitarian Cultists – “It is irresistible…The chance to be a part of something like that, and to unleash one’s hatred on those who refuse to go along with the new religion”

“When you are talking to them, you’re not talking to them. You’re talking to the agents. You’re talking to the machines. Try it sometime. You’ll see what I mean. It’s like talking to a single algorithm that is running in millions of people’s brains”.

It was always going to come to this … mobs of hysterical, hate-drunk brownshirts hunting down people not wearing masks and trying to get them fired from their jobs, “no mask, no service” signs outside stores, security staff stopping the mask-less from entering, paranoid pod people pointing and shrieking at the sight of mask-less shoppers in their midst, goon squads viciously attacking and arresting them …

Welcome to the Brave New Normal.

And it isn’t just the Maskenpflicht-Sturmabteilung. The new official narrative is omnipresent. The corporate media are pumping out hysteria about “Covid-19 hospitalizations” (i.e., anyone admitted to a hospital for anything who tested positive for the coronavirus) and “major incidents” (i.e., people at the beach). Police are manning makeshift social-distancing-monitoring watchtowers in London. There are propaganda posters and billboards everywhere, repeating the same neo-Goebbelsian slogans, reinforcing the manufactured mass hysteria. Dissent and nonconformity are being pathologized, “diagnosed” as psychopathy and paranoiaMandatory vaccinations are coming.

You didn’t think they were kidding, did you, when they started introducing the Brave New Normal official narrative back in March? They told us, clearly, what was coming. They told us life was going to change … forever. They locked us down inside our homes. They ordered churches and synagogues closed. They ordered the police to abuse and arrest us if we violated their arbitrary orders. They closed the schools, parks, beaches, restaurants, cafés, theaters, clubs, anywhere that people gather. They ripped children out of their mother’s arms, beat and arrested other mothers for the crime of “wearing their masks improperly,” dragged mask-less passengers off of public buses, gratuitously beat and arrested people for not “social-distancing” on the sidewalk, shackled people with ankle monitors, and intimidated everyone with robots and drones. They outlawed protests, then hunted down people attending them and harassed them at their homes. They started tracking everyone’s contacts and movements. They drafted new “emergency” laws to allow them to forcibly quarantine people. They did this openly. They publicized it. It’s not like they were hiding anything.

No, they told us exactly what was coming, and advised us to shut up and follow orders. Tragically, most people have done just that. In the space of four months, GloboCap has successfully imposed totalitarianism — pathologized totalitarianism — on societies all across the world. It isn’t traditional totalitarianism, with a dictator and a one-party system, and so on. It is subtler and more insidious than that. But it is totalitarianism nonetheless.

GloboCap could not have achieved this without the approval (or at least the acquiescence) of the vast majority of the masses. The coronavirus mass hysteria was a masterstroke of propaganda, but propaganda isn’t everything. No one is really fooled by propaganda, or not for long, in any event. As Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari noted in the opening of Anti-Oedipus:

“The masses were not innocent dupes. At a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for.”

I am not going to try to account for the “perversion of the desire of the masses” here in this essay, but I do want to dig into the new pathologized totalitarianism a little bit.

Now, I’m going to assume that you understand that the official “apocalyptic pandemic” narrative is predicated on propaganda, wild speculation, and mass hysteria, and that by now you are aware that we are dealing with a virus that causes mild to moderate symptoms (or absolutely no symptoms at all) in 95% of those infected, and that over 99.5% survive … thus, clearly, no cause for widespread panic or justification for the totalitarian “emergency measures” that have been imposed. I am also going to assume that you watched as GloboCap switched off the “deadly pandemic” to accommodate the BLM protests, then switched it back on as soon as they subsided, and that you noted how their propaganda shifted to “cases” when the death count finally became a little too embarrassing to continue to hype.

So, I won’t waste your time debunking the hysteria. Let’s talk pathologized totalitarianism.

The genius of pathologized totalitarianism is like that old joke about the Devil … his greatest trick was convincing us that he doesn’t exist. Pathologized totalitarianism appears to emanate from nowhere, and everywhere, simultaneously; thus, technically, it does not exist. It cannot exist, because no one is responsible for it, because everyone is. Mass hysteria is its lifeblood. It feeds on existential fear. “Science” is its rallying cry. Not actual science, not provable facts, but “Science” as a kind of deity whose Name is invoked to silence heretics, or to ease the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance that results from desperately trying to believe the absurdities of the official narrative.

The other genius of it (from a GloboCap viewpoint) is that it is inexhaustible, endlessly recyclable. Unlike other official enemies, the “deadly virus” could be any virus, any pathogen whatsoever. All they have to do from now on is “discover” some “novel” micro-organism that is highly contagious (or that mimics some other micro-organism that we already have), and wave it in front of people’s faces. Then they can crank up the Fear Machine, and start projecting hundreds of millions of deaths if everyone doesn’t do exactly as they’re told. They can run this schtick … well, pretty much forever, anytime the working classes get restless, or an unauthorized president gets elected, or just for the sheer sadistic fun of it.

Look, I don’t mean to be depressing, but seriously, spend an hour on the Internet, or talk to one of your hysterical friends that wants to make mask-wearing mandatory, permanently. This is the mentality of the Brave New Normal … irrationally paranoid and authoritarian. So, no, the future isn’t looking very bright for anyone not prepared to behave as if the world were one big infectious disease ward.

I’ve interacted with a number of extremely paranoid corona-totalitarians recently (just as a kind of social experiment). They behave exactly like members of a cult. When challenged with facts and basic logic, first, they flood you with media propaganda and hysterical speculation from “medical experts.” Then, after you debunk that nonsense, they attempt to emotionally manipulate you by sharing their heartbreaking personal accounts of the people their therapists’ brother-in-laws’ doctors had to helplessly watch as they “died in agony” when their lungs and hearts mysteriously exploded. Then, after you don’t bite down on that, they start hysterically shrieking paranoia at you (“JUST WAIT UNTIL THEY INTUBATE YOU!” … “KEEP YOUR SPITTLE AWAY FROM ME!”) and barking orders and slogans at you (“JUST WEAR THE GODDAMN MASK, YOU BABY!” … “NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO MASK, NO SERVICE!”)

Which … OK, that would be kind of funny (or terribly sad), if these paranoid people were not just mouthpieces echoing the voice of the official power (i.e., GloboCap) that is transforming what is left of society into a paranoid, pathologized, totalitarian nightmare right before our eyes.

They’re kind of like the “woman in red” in The Matrix. When you are talking to them, you’re not talking to them. You’re talking to the agents. You’re talking to the machines. Try it sometime. You’ll see what I mean. It’s like talking to a single algorithm that is running in millions of people’s brains.

I can’t lie to you. I’m not very hopeful. No one who understands the attraction (i.e., the seduction) of totalitarianism is. Much as we may not like to admit it, it is exhilarating, and liberating, being part of the mob, surrendering the burden of personal autonomy and individual responsibility, fusing with a fanatical “movement” that is ushering in a new “reality” backed by the sheer brute force of the state … or the transnational global capitalist empire.

It is irresistible, that attraction, to most of us. The chance to be a part of something like that, and to unleash one’s hatred on those who refuse to go along with the new religion … to publicly ridicule them, to humiliate them, to segregate them from normal society, to hunt them down and get them fired from their jobs, to cheer as police abuse and arrest them, to diagnose them as “abnormal” and “inferior,” these social deviants, these subhuman “others,” who dare to challenge the authority of the Party, or the Church, or the State, or the Reich, or Science.

Plus, in the eyes of GloboCap (and its millions of fanatical, slogan-chanting followers), such non-mask-wearing deviants are dangerous. They are like a disease … an infestation. A sickness in the social body. If they refuse to conform, they will have to be dealt with, quarantined, or something like that.

Or they can just surrender to the Brave New Normal, and stop acting like babies, and wear a goddamn mask.

After all, it’s just a harmless piece of cloth.

========================

The lockdown is causing so many deaths

The lockdown is causing so many deaths  Interview with Dr Malcolm Kendrick, Spiked Online, 27 June 2020

Few would disagree that the UK’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been a shambles. We are now in the 14th week of a three-week lockdown and excess deaths are among the highest in Europe. But while the received wisdom is that lives could only have been saved by locking down harder, earlier and for longer, the benefits of lockdown remain unproven, while the costs of lockdown are starting to mount. Dr Malcolm Kendrick is a GP and author of Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsensespiked caught up with him to get his take from the frontline.

spiked: Do you think the Covid statistics are accurate?

Malcolm Kendrick: It is very difficult to tell. It is clear that different countries are recording deaths differently. Death certification is not a precise science. Normally, when someone dies, you have got a reasonably good idea what they died from. But if a person who is 85 drops dead, what do you put on the certificate? I do this, so I know it is not very accurate. GPs were advised to put Covid-19 on the certificate if they suspected somebody had it, even if there was no test done. We are in a strange situation where we are probably both over-recording Covid-19 and simultaneously under-recording it. Will we ever know what the real statistics were?

We are over-recording it because elderly people die quite often, and we may say they have died of Covid-19 but not know that was the case. Therefore there will have been a number of people who died of other things who have been recorded as dying of Covid-19. Equally, there will be people who died of Covid-19 but the GP did not know, so did not put it on the certificate. It really depends on how people decide to record the death.

The really concerning thing is that if all the deaths taking place during lockdown are put down as Covid-19 deaths, we are going to miss the fact that the lockdown policies have caused an increase in deaths from many other things. There has been a 50 per cent reduction in people turning up to A&E. It is clear that people just do not want to bother the doctors. And a number of these people will be dying. If we muddle the Covid-19 statistics in with the other statistics, we might think the lockdown has prevented a certain number of deaths, when it has actually caused a large number of deaths.

spiked: Was there any danger of hospitals becoming overwhelmed from Covid?

Kendrick: The clarion call was to clear the hospitals of patients. There was a point when my local hospital was a quarter full. Staff were wandering around with nothing to do. You hear this idea that all NHS staff have been working 20 times as hard as they have ever done. This is complete nonsense. An awful lot of people have been standing around wondering what the hell to do with themselves. A&E has never been so quiet.

This initial response was understandable, but it quite rapidly became clear that it was an overreaction. The problem then was that it was essentially decided that wherever beds could be found, patients would be put in them, whether tested or not tested, positive or negative. They basically just started throwing people out into the intermediate care sector.

The average age of death from Covid-19 in the UK is around 82, and most of those people have comorbidities. I said to our managers that we had to test people and could not just be throwing them into nursing homes. But that is what they did. Homes were virtually ordered to take elderly patients. We had one nursing home that ended up with 12 deaths in a week.

The health service treated elderly, vulnerable people as figures on a piece of paper. The lack of any brain power being applied to this was amazing. They had one objective – to clear the hospitals – and everything else was subordinate to that. Of course, they will never say this is what happened. But that is precisely what did happen.

spiked: You’ve described our policy as an ‘anti-lockdown’. What do you mean by that?

Kendrick: How many people aged 15 or under have died of Covid-19? Four. The chance of dying from a lightning strike is one in 700,000. The chance of dying of Covid-19 in that age group is one in 3.5million. And we locked them all down. Even among the 15- to 44-year-olds, the death rate is very low and the vast majority of deaths have been people who had significant underlying health conditions. We locked them down as well. We locked down the population that had virtually zero risk of getting any serious problems from the disease, and then spread it wildly among the highly vulnerable age group. If you had written a plan for making a complete bollocks of things you would have come up with this one.

spiked: Was there a reluctance to confront the potential damage caused by lockdown?

Kendrick: You cannot just spend all the money in the world on something, because that money needs to pay for other things. NICE has a cut-off point for expenditure. They are willing to spend £30,000 to achieve one extra year of high-quality life. This has been the policy for 20 years. The last figure on how much this will cost the UK government was over £300 billion. Even if you divide that by 500,000, which is the total number it was initially suggested might die, you still end up with a figure that is about £600,000 per death. You cannot dissociate money and health.

We are spending as much on Covid-19 as we would spend on the NHS in three normal years. You have got to ask the question of what we are going to get from that. Refusing to engage that question is political cowardice. Politicians have just said they did what everyone else did and so we cannot blame them for anything that has happened. It was only Sweden that did not go down that route, and Japan, too, which has had very few deaths.

I have looked at the impact of social upheaval in the post-Soviet Union countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Russia had five million excess deaths in that period due to economic problems. That is how powerful the effects can be. We are going to see the downsides of lockdown policies around the world.

It will probably be okay for Britain – we will be a bit worse-off for a while. But some countries in Africa, South Asia and South America are just going to obliterate themselves trying to model their response to Covid-19 on a lockdown they just cannot afford. South Africa is already bursting at the seams. We have to look at this with a global perspective. This is going to be extremely costly and destructive of huge sections of the population.

Even just the health costs are huge. We had a patient who had lung cancer. He was very unwell and was being treated with chemotherapy, but they just stopped treating him. He died. His life expectancy was not great, but in my mind it is absolutely a case of cause and effect – the stopping of his chemotherapy meant he gave up hope, despaired and died. That is going to be a theme.

These figures are hard to measure, because it is difficult to say with certainty that an individual did not contact the doctor because of Covid-19, and that is why they died. But this is happening.

This has cost us at least £300 billion. It is going to destroy the health of a lot of people. And for what? All of these factors are of considerable importance, and I know they are just going to be swept under the carpet. If you are not willing to accept that you might have done more harm than good, you cannot look at the situation accurately or objectively.

If you are someone who says, ‘this is bollocks’, you are dismissed as not caring about people, as wanting people to die. Dare question the orthodoxy and you face a full broadside. People want to be seen as caring. But the economy is pretty important. If you do not have an economy, you do not have a health service. If you do not have a health service, everyone dies.

spiked: We were pushed into lockdown by modelling. What did you make of those models?

Kendrick: Epidemiologists would rather overestimate a threat by 100 times than underestimate it by 10 per cent. These models will always hugely overestimate risk. Everyone has to say things will be really serious because they would look terrible if they said things would be all right and they were not. If they are proved wrong, they can say it was just as well to warn people because it could have been terrible even though it did not end up being so. This approach is taken without any cognisance of the damage that the advice they have given has caused.

Take the Imperial College modelling. It said 80 per cent of people might get infected. That has never happened with a virus. It was also predicated on the idea that everybody was equally likely to get the virus and nobody had any internal immunity against it. This also turned out to be nonsense. It also assumed a death rate of 0.9 per cent. This figure might be right for people with symptoms, but not for the wider population. The modelling was based on the worst possible scenario. And unfortunately, Imperial College seems to have an immense influence.

spiked: What other questions are not being asked at the moment?

Kendrick: One issue is how long immunity lasts for this virus. If immunity only lasts for a short time, it cannot work. This does not seem to be being discussed. If the vaccine raises antibodies, it will have an effect. But if the virus mutates or we lose our immunity, we are in trouble. It is not clear that getting the virus actually makes you immune to it in the future, and it is not clear a vaccine would either. What then? Has anyone thought that through?

We are probably all going to get Covid-19 and we are all going to keep getting it. The only purpose of lockdown was to protect the health service from being overwhelmed, which did not happen. The end result is that lockdown was a waste of time. It cannot be continued forever.

They have been trying to get a vaccine for HIV for the last 30 years and they have not managed it yet. There is a reason for that, and it is probably the same reason why they will not get a vaccine for this.

Malcolm Kendrick was talking to Fraser Myers.

======================

Coronavirus: Too many ‘experts’ were crying wolf over COVID-19

Coronavirus. Too many ‘experts’ were crying wolf over COVID-19  By Judith Sloan, The Australian, 25 June 2020

I’ve been reading John Kay and Mervyn King’s Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making for an Unknowable Future. Written before­ the COVID-19 outbreak, its themes are extremely relevant to any analysis of today’s circumstances. It is highly entertaining and wide-ranging. Kay and King make the important distinction between risk and uncertainty. While it’s possible to place prob­abilities against particular contingencies in risky situations, uncer­tainty involves no such numerical specifications. The authors use the two terms puzzles and mysteries to make the point. Puzzles may be difficult to solve but, with effort, intelligence and resources, robust answers can be produced. This is not the case with mysteries.

What starts off as a mystery can become a puzzle over time. And, in the best cases, the ultimate solutions emerge. But many puzzle­s or problems are what are called wicked, as opposed to tame. There is often contradictory and changing evidence, the aims of the exercise are many and also changing, and often are not compatible in the sense that they can all be achieved at the same time.

The bottom line is that life is tough for policymakers faced with complex situations with inadequate information and the absence of a proven framework to answer the question “what is going on here?’’.

Their professional lives are made even more complicated by grandstanding “experts” whose motivations often include public exposure and adulation. Having worked for years in some labor­atory out the back, or cranking the handle of the computer with ­masses of data (often wildly inaccurate), their time in the sun has fin­ally come. Think epidemiol­ogists, infectious diseases specialists and climate scientists.

One of the main problems Kay and King identify is experts’ tendency to convert mysteries into puzzles before there is reliable information on the values of the key parameters that drive the models. Assumptions are por­trayed as “truth” and the implications of the models are seen as a reliable guide for decision-making.

Early this year, various international experts presented expect­ed infection and death rates arising from COVID-19 using statistical models. Mostly, those figures today look preposterous.

Australians were led to believe there would be between 50,000 and 150,000 deaths, numbers sufficient­ly large to scare most people. (It was rarely mentioned that more than 160,000 people die in Australia each year.) Estimates overseas were equally ridiculous, including from Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London’s School of Public Health. He claimed there could be up to 500,000 deaths from COVID-19 in Britain and up to 2.2 million in the US.

Many epidemiologists are scrambling to salvage their reput­ations. Some even suggest there are shonky scientists out there who have been making extravagant claims. There are good ones and bad ones, evidently. The fact almost all of these scientists hold publicly funded positions in well-known institutions makes this claim difficult to sort out.

Then there is the irrefutable ­response that the predictions were wrong because social distancing and lockdowns flattened the curve. That’s really just the equivalent of “heads I win, tails you lose”. Take this explanation from Ferguson: “My (recent) evidence to parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social-distancing and other public health interventions now in place. Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to about 500,000).”

This sort of statement leaves many issues unanswered. What is the real evidence that particular types of social distancing and lockdowns affect the course of the virus? Does preventing families meeting in groups really matter compared with allowing large sporting events or music festivals? Does the closure of sit-in restaur­ants, pubs and clubs really make much difference? Does the shutting of international borders and enforced quarantine for all arrivals effectively contain the virus?

These are research questions scientists could have spent their time on. But it was never going to be enough to leave it to the scientists, because the practicality and sustainability of imposed restrictions are also critical public policy considerations. Psychologists and economists both have roles to play in this context.

It’s not too early to make the claim that the scientists were far too quick to claim COVID-19 was a puzzle rather than a mystery. Of course, coronaviruses had been identified in the past, but this variety­ has characteristics that are only now becoming clearer.

By presenting the situation as one based on risk (but with assumed­ and highly contestable values attached to the parameters) rather than uncertainty, arguably the key policymakers jumped the gun in terms of making decisions with profound social and econo­mic consequences for many­ ­people without anything close to adequate evidence.

This doesn’t mean all the measures have been wrong. After all, decision-making in the contex­t of uncertainty means policymakers will mostly err on the side of caution. What is baffling­ is why more attention wasn’t paid to the ability of the health system ­(including intensive care unit ­capacity) to deal with the disease. Let’s face it, COVID-19 hasn’t laid a glove on our healthcare system at any stage.

A bit of humility on the part of the scientists also wouldn’t go astray. They also might care to ­re-read the fable about the boy who cried wolf.

JUDITH SLOAN, CONTRIBUTING ECONOMICS EDITOR

Judith Sloan is an economist and company director. She holds degrees from the University of Melbourne and the London School of Economics. She has held a number of government appointments, including Commissioner… Read more

======================

Coronavirus – how the US took leave of its senses

 

Coronavirus – how the US took leave of its senses  From HumansAreFree, 21 June 2020

Millions of Americans remain subjected to unprecedented restrictions on their personal lives, their daily lives, their family’s lives.

The coronavirus lockdowns continue in many places. You may not know that because it gets no publicity, but it’s true. And if you’re living under it, you definitely know.

As a result of this, tens of millions of people are now unemployed. A huge number of them have no prospects of working again.

Many thousands of small businesses are closed and will never reopen. More Americans have become dependent on drugs and alcohol, seeing their marriages dissolve, and become clinically depressed.

Some of them delayed their weddings. Others were banned by the government from burying their loved ones in funerals.

Some Americans will die of cancer because they couldn’t get cancer screenings, some unknown number have taken their own lives in despair.

Others have flooded the streets to riot because bottled up rage and frustration take many forms.

The cost of shutting down the United States and denying our citizens desperately needed contact with one another is hard to calculate. But the cost has been staggering.

The people responsible for doing all of this, say they have no regrets about it. We faced a global calamity, they say. COVID-19 was the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu. That flu killed 50 million people.

We had no choice. We did the right thing. That’s what they’re telling us. Is it true?

The answer to that question matters, not just because the truth always matters, but because the credibility of our leaders is at stake here.

This is the biggest decision they have made in our lifetimes. They were able to make it. They rule because we let them. Their power comes from us.

As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not necessary.

So the question, now and always is, are they worthy of that power?

That’s not a conversation they want to have. And right now, they don’t have to have that conversation because all of us are distracted and mesmerized by the woke revolution underway outside.

They just created a separate country in Seattle. Huh? We’ll bring you the latest on that. But we do think it’s worth four minutes taking a pause to assess whether or not they were in fact lying to us about the coronavirus and our response to it.

And the short answer is this: Yes, they were definitely lying.

As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not necessary. In fact, we can prove that.

And here’s the most powerful evidence: States that never locked down at all – states where people were allowed to live like Americans and not cower indoors alone – in the end turned out no worse than states that had mandatory quarantines. The state you probably live in.

The states that locked down at first but were quick to reopen have not seen explosions of coronavirus cases. All of this is the opposite of what they said would happen with great confidence.

The media predicted mass death at places like Lake of the Ozarks and Ocean City, Md. – places where the middle class dares to vacation. But those deaths never happened.

In the end, the Wuhan coronavirus turned out to be a dangerous disease, but a manageable disease, like so many others. Far more dangerous were the lockdowns themselves.

For example, in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, panicked and incompetent governors forced nursing homes to accept infected coronavirus patients, and as a result, many thousands died, and they died needlessly.

This is all a remarkable story, but it’s going almost entirely uncovered. The media would rather tell you why you need to hate your neighbor for the color of his skin.

The media definitely don’t want to revisit what they were saying just a few weeks ago, when they were acting as press agents for power-drunk Democratic politicians.

We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most basic questions in our lives.

At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.

Back then, news anchors were ordering you to stop asking questions and obey.

Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor: All right, so while most Americans are staying inside – or should be, right, if they’re not out protesting like fools – they’re not happy about being told to stay home. Staying home saves lives.

And the rest of us should be staying at home for our mothers and the people that we love, and to keep us farther apart, will ultimately bring us closer together in this cause.

Our collective conscientious actions – staying home.

Oh, if you love your mother, you will do what I say. It turns out cable news anchors don’t make very subtle propagandists.

And then Memorial Day arrived in May, and some states started to reopen. Millions of grateful Americans headed outdoors for the first time in months, and the media attacked them for doing that. They called them killers.

Swimming with your kids, they told us, was tantamount to mass murder.

Claire McCaskill, MSNBC political analyst: Frankly, a lot of the people in those crowds – they thought they were, you know, standing up for what the president believes in and that is not to care about the public safety part of this.

Robyn Curnow, CNN host: Look at this. I mean, this is kind of crazy, considering we’re in the middle of a global pandemic.

I mean, as one person quipped, you know, that’s curving the curve. That’s not flattening it.

Don Lemon, CNN anchor: Massive crowd of people crammed together, as if it were just an ordinary holiday weekend despite the risks of a virus that has killed more than 98,000 people.

Boy that montage was the opposite of a MENSA meeting. Has that much dumbness been captured on tape ever?

The last clip you saw was from May 25th. That was just over two weeks ago. “Ninety eight thousand people are dead. How dare you leave your house? You don’t work in the media. You’re not essential.”

But it didn’t take long for that message to change completely. In fact, it took precisely five days.

Here’s the same brain dead news anchor you just saw less than a week later. He is no longer angry, you’ll notice, about Americans going outside.

As long as they are rioting and burning and not doing something sinful, like swimming with their children, he is delighted by it.

Lemon: And let’s not forget, if anyone is judging this – I’m not judging this, I’m just wondering what is going on.

Because we were supposed to figure out this experiment a long time ago. Our country was started because – this is how: the Boston Tea Party. Rioting.

So don’t – do not get it twisted and think that, oh, this is something that has never happened before. And then this is so terrible, and where are we in these savages and all of that. This is how this country was started.

Yes, don’t judge. This is how this country was started – by looting CVS and setting fire to Wendy’s. Of course, you took American History. You knew that.

Andrew Cuomo’s brother must have been in the same history class because he had the same reaction.

Chris Cuomo: America’s major cities are filled with people demanding this country be more fair, more just.

And please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.

Because I can show you that outraged citizens are the ones who have made America what she is and led to any major milestones.

They are here to yell, criticize, blame, and shame.

Citizens have no duty to check their outrage.

Wow. So, one minute they were mass murderers for going outside. Now, they’re Sam Adams. They’re patriots. They’re American heroes.

If all of this seems like a pretty abrupt pivot, fret not. Rioting is not a health risk as long as it helps the Democratic Party’s prospects in the November election. Rioting will not spread the coronavirus.

Sounds implausible, but we can be certain of that, because last week, hundreds of self-described public health officials signed a letter saying so.

They announced that the Black Lives Matter riots are a vital contribution to public health. In effect, they’re an essential medical procedure.

But that doesn’t mean you get to go outside. You don’t.

Thanks to coronavirus, you do not have the right to resume your life, and if you complain about that, it’s “white nationalism.” That was their professional conclusion.

Does a single American believe any of that? No, of course not. It is too stupid even for CNN to repeat, so they mostly ignored it.

That’s an ominous sign if you think about it. It means these people are done trying to convince you, even to fool you.

They’re not making arguments, they’re issuing decrees. They think they can. They no longer believe they need your consent to make big decisions to run the country.

Once the authority stops trying to change your mind, even by deceit, it means they’ve decided to use force – and they have.

During the lockdowns, people whose loved ones died were not allowed to have funerals for them. Think about that. It’s hard to think of anything crueler, but it happened to a lot of people. They claimed it was necessary.

It was not necessary. And we know that because now that a man has died whose death is politically useful to the Democratic Party, the authorities have given him three funerals and not a word about a health risk.

Or consider King County, Wash – that’s where Seattle is. Restaurants in King County are operating at just 25 percent capacity. That’s the law now. Nonessential businesses are allowed just 15 percent capacity.

The effect of that is economic disaster. Most small businesses run on very small margins. They can’t survive for long, and in fact, many have failed.

What should they do? They should join Antifa, obviously, because in King County, Wash., Antifa can do whatever Antifa wants to do.

They have taken over an entire six-block section of downtown Seattle, and that’s fine with health authorities. There is no social distancing required. They’re essential.

Are you getting the picture? Is it adding up to a message? Yes, the message is we were played. We were all played.

Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most basic questions in our lives.

At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.

In other words, they used a public health emergency to subvert democracy and install themselves as monarchs. How were they able to do this?

The sad truth is, they did it because we let them do it. We believed them, therefore, we obeyed them.

If there’s anything good to come out of this disaster, it’s that none of us will ever make that mistake again.

========================

Doug Casey on How Fake Science is Used as Propaganda

Doug Casey on How Fake Science is Used as Propaganda  By Doug Casey, Internationalman.com, 18 June 2020

 
 

International Man: The Lancet recently retracted an anti-hydroxychloroquine study, which the media had used to attack Trump.

Trump had admitted to taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure against the coronavirus. The media then went into a frenzy. The talking heads often cited The Lancet study as proof hydroxychloroquine was dangerous.

The bottom line is that bogus research made its way—likely deliberately—into one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. People then used this “science” as a political weapon.

What is your take on this?

Doug Casey: I’d say the whole charade is tragic, except that “tragic” has become the most overused word in the language today. It bears a short discussion.

Look at the recent death of a small-time career criminal, George Floyd. It’s as if “tragic” were part of his name. It’s as if people no longer understand the meaning of the word. A tragedy used to mean that a heroic protagonist succumbed to a cosmic force. There are no heroes in the degraded melodrama, just villains, where a costumed thug murdered a street thug under the color of law.

Sorry to go off on a tangent. But it’s a timely instance of another word whose meaning has been twisted. It’s Orwellian, like so many other things in our devolving society.

Let’s talk about something that’s actually tragic: the corruption of science over the last couple of generations.

I’ve subscribed to Scientific American, Discover, and New Scientist for many years. During this time, I’ve noticed a distinct change in their respective editorial policies. They’ve all been politicized, captured by the PC left. These popular magazines are nowhere near the quality they once were. But this is just symptomatic of a bigger problem.

You might recall the 2018 hoax where three academics, disgusted with widespread incompetence and dishonesty in research, submitted absurd “spoof” papers to twenty leading journals. They were written in gobbledygook, full of made-up facts and flawed reasoning. But most, as I recall, were peer-reviewed and published.

If you research the subject a bit, you come to the conclusion half the peer-reviewed papers—absolutely in “soft” fields like psychology, sociology, political science, race and gender studies, etc.—are unreadable, dishonest, useless, and pointless.

Why might this be? If an academic wants to advance in today’s university system, he has to publish research. It’s Pareto’s Law in action, the 80–20 rule. It’s pretty reliable, 80% of this sort of thing is crap because it’s written mainly to fabricate credentials, not advance knowledge.

This is a bad thing.

It’s causing the average guy, who may not know anything about science but still has some respect for it, to lose that respect. That’s because science has become politicized.

You can see it with the conflicting information about COVID-19. Is it deadly or just another seasonal flu? Does it affect everyone, like the black death, or mainly the old and sick? Does almost everyone who contracts the virus get very sick or die or only a tiny percentage? Should you quarantine or live normally?

So far, as near as I can tell, the great virus hysteria has gone from being the next black plague to basically a big nothing. It’s not nearly as bad as the Asian Flu from the 50s or the Hong Kong Flu from the 60s. Forget about the Spanish Flu—there’s no comparison whatsoever. The main effect of COVID isn’t medical; it’s the hysteria that’s destroyed the economy. And political actions are even more insane than those after 9/11.

Politics thrives on hysteria. The politicization of everything is the real problem. And it’s not just about the total disruption of society and multitrillion-dollar deficits. For instance, I’ve played poker with a bunch of guys in Aspen every Monday night for years. Now, even though the lockdown in town is easing, the group is breaking up because most of them insist that everyone wear a mask. I won’t, nor will a couple of other guys. So, between that and a few guys who are now scared to socialize no matter what … game over. It may also mean the end of a larger Friday business lunch group I belong to that’s been around for decades.

There are millions of similar small rips in the social fabric taking place everywhere now. And they’re largely justified by “the science.”

The real problem is that the knock-on effects of the virus will last much, much longer than the trivial virus itself—which will soon burn out and be forgotten. The political, economic, and social changes, however, will linger for years, as will attitudes toward “science.”

International Man: What are the implications of people corrupting the scientific process to launder their political propaganda to shape mainstream opinions?

Doug Casey: You might think this is a new thing, but the left, in particular—who have always been advocates of social engineering— love using “science” to further their political agenda.

The first important instance of this was Karl Marx and his notion of “scientific socialism”—a totally bogus idea.

Since he first promoted it over 150 years ago, the concept has become ingrained in the culture, especially academia. People have been taught to believe there’s such a thing as “scientific socialism,” and that it’s not just inevitable, but desirable. In fact, it’s pseudoscience. But that’s just the first example of corruption of science in modern times.

Keynesianism is another example. Keynesians believe that they can manipulate the economy as if it were a machine.

A machine is a horrible analogy for the economy, however. It’s not a machine or a factory where you can pull levers to make magic happen—which is precisely what the Keynesians (who run the economic world today) think they can do.

The economy is more like a rainforest, which is very complex. It can’t be manipulated from outside by apparatchiks enforcing rules. And if you do try to manipulate a rainforest from outside, you’re likely to destroy it.

Keynesianism is a perfect example of scientism (that’s the use of the vocabulary and trappings of science for inappropriate subjects). You can see scientism used everywhere in the humanities and “soft” sciences. This is usually to legitimize some type of state intervention.

Sociology and psychology are basically about social engineering. They’re not generally scientific so much as scientistic. They often try to put a scientific patina on forcing people to interact with each other in prescribed ways.

But it goes way beyond just sociology and psychology. English departments are notorious for using leftist literary works to insinuate certain ideas in students. Economics departments use arcane math formulas to describe human action—pure scientism, with lots of ideological baggage. Marx himself was primarily a historian. Many college degrees today are completely bogus and worthless. An example? There are degrees in gender studies.

The trend is way out of control. Ridiculous scientific concepts that started with Marx are everywhere.

The same people—by that, I mean those with Marxist, socialist, and Keynesian outlooks—are behind the global warming frenzy, which is full of pseudoscience, fudged numbers, and bogus statistics.

The latest manifestation of all this, of course, is the COVID hysteria.

But behind it all is state funding of science—Big Science. It started in earnest after World War II.

Government funding is authorized by politicians. They make decisions for political reasons. In order to qualify, you have to come up with results that are politically acceptable, which itself is the best reason for not having any government funding.

But some might ask: Without the government, where would Big Science get the billions needed for giant projects?

In fact, most of the capital that goes into scientific research from the state would still go into science; knowledge has value. But money would be allocated economically, not politically, thereby creating more wealth—much more than today, when much is wasted on politically caused boondoggles. Most government science spending is necessarily misallocated.

The increasingly political nature of science funding has served to discredit the idea of science itself.

International Man: The Democrats liken themselves as the so-called “Party of Science.” What do you think?

Doug Casey: It’s nonsense, but it’s very clever marketing on their part.

They get away with it because the Republicans are basically the party of business. And more importantly, the people who vote Republican tend to be traditionalist and religion-oriented.

That’s a problem because scientific thinkers tend to see religion as irrelevant, dangerous, or even laughable—at best, as an inaccurate or bogus way to describe the world.

Democrats, on the other hand, are notoriously secular and non-religious. Coincidentally, so are most scientists. That’s resulted in some unfortunate confusion. Democrats, illogically, seem to believe that just because they’re secular, they must be scientific.

The fact is, however, that the Democrats are not the party of science.

In fact, they’re the party of pseudoscience, bogus science, and scientism. Science doesn’t mix well with politics—or religion.

But Democrats are clever marketers, linking themselves with science to differentiate themselves from Republicans, the party of tradition and religion.

When you think about tradition and religion, it can bring to mind flat earth theories, geocentric astronomy, Torquemada, the persecution of Galileo, and witch trials. Democrats love to paint themselves as rational advanced thinkers and Republicans as superstitious atavists.

Of course, religion and science have been at each other’s throats forever. Another reason I’ve always said the Dems are more the evil party and the Reps more the stupid party. But a pox on both their houses…

International Man: Events like this seem to be a prime reason why a growing number of people are losing confidence in previously credible institutions and the self-anointed “experts.”

What does this mean?

Doug Casey: Tens of millions now have college degrees that they think mean something. In fact, they’re worth less than a high school diploma was before World War 2. People go on to get PhDs, which, it’s always been said, stands for “piled higher and deeper.”

Especially since World War 2, government has gotten vastly bigger and involved in everything. Huge mistake…

The government’s role is simple—to protect people from coercion: protection from domestic coercion, which implies the police force; protection from transnational coercion, which implies an army; and providing justice within the country, which implies a judicial system.

The government shouldn’t do anything else.

But since it’s now involved in absolutely everything, you need “experts” to decide what’s to be done.

We see this today with people like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who’s nothing more than a lifelong bureaucrat. He’s lived in the swamp his entire life, and he’s a typical technocrat. He believes he knows what’s best for you.

People like Fauci have assumed tremendous power over other people and the way society works. He’s a clever politician and has been effective at backslapping and backstabbing. And wheedling his way into a high bureaucratic position. The government is full of people like him.

Another important thing about COVID is that they call it a “health crisis.”

That’s untrue for several reasons. First, health is something that you take care of yourself. It’s personal, not public. As wonderful and as advanced as medicine has become, it’s of little use for maintaining your health.

You maintain your health through proper diet, exercise, and good habits. Medicine is about repairing damage if you have a serious injury or illness. It overlaps, obviously, but is essentially very different from health care.

Anyway, COVID has been dressed up as an excuse to not just destroy the economy, but in many ways, destroy society itself. Similar to global warming, Keynesianism, Marxism, and other forms of scientism.

It’s one of many signs of how society is degrading at an accelerating rate.

I don’t know what the next massive boondoggle is going to be after this is over. You might recall the police state pictured in the excellent movie “V for Vendetta” was brought into being because of a fake virus epidemic. Talk about life imitating art! If things keep going in this direction, the US will start looking like the old USSR.

International Man: Society is degrading at an accelerating pace. What can people do to protect themselves?

Doug Casey: Unfortunately, the whole world seems to worship democracy. Democracy, however, is really just mob rule dressed in a coat and tie. Worse, that trend is not only still in motion, but it’s accelerating.

What can you do to protect yourself? It’s becoming a situation of sauve qui peut—every man for himself. That’s where gold comes in.

I’ve always been a fan of gold—always for savings and often as a speculation. It’s been great, and gold bugs have done very well. It’s gone from $35 to over $1,700. And it’s going much higher.

It’s a great way to save money and build capital over time. At the moment, I’m speculating in gold mining stocks, which are extremely cheap. I expect the next mania to be in them.

But I don’t have any political solutions for people, except to stop looking to politics as the solution to problems. And stop acting like a bunch of chimpanzees looking for a leader.

Politics is the problem, the cause of most of today’s problems. It’s not the solution.

Editor’s Note: Economically, politically, and socially, the United States seems to be headed down a path that’s not only inconsistent with the founding principles of the country but accelerating quickly toward boundless decay.

It’s contributing to a growing wave of misguided socialist ideas.

That’s exactly why Doug Casey and his team just released this new video outlining what it’s all about and what comes next. Click here to watch it now.

===================================

Coronavirus: Inflated pandemic estimates weaken climate forecasts

Coronavirus. Inflated pandemic estimates weaken climate forecasts  By Adam Creighton, The Australian, 17 June 2020

Tony Abbott’s suspicion that climate change modelling was “absolute crap” soon will resonate more broadly — so spectacularly bad was expert modelling of the spread and lethality of the coronavirus, faith in all modelling must surely suffer.

Why trust the experts to forecast the climate decades into the future when they were so wrong about a disease related to the common cold?

Official coronavirus and climate change modelling share catastrophic predictions. Unfortunately for virus modellers, reality dawned a lot sooner and it has delivered an F for fail.

The pandemic has damaged the credibility of “experts” and highlighted the limits of “the science” and the misplaced hubris of the political class.

On whatever measure you choose — deaths, infections, rate of transmission — the epidemiological models that convinced governments to take a sledgehammer to their economies, now mired in unrest, have proved scandalously pessimistic and out by orders of magnitude.

We were told the virus’s spread would be “exponential”. It wasn’t; transmission was falling before mandatory lockdowns scared the daylights out of people.

The infection fatality rate, we were told, would be about 1 per cent; it’s closer to 0.2 per cent, akin to a severe flu. Apparently, lifting lockdowns early would see cases surge; they haven’t. And we were all vulnerable — but most weren’t; the median age of death is well over 80. Driving is more dangerous. At least half of deaths globally have been in aged-care homes, which were already locked down. We understood you could catch COVID-19 again — also wrong. We closed schools and wore masks, but the evidence we needed to do so is scant.

The raw numbers speak for themselves. The death toll globally is on track to be smaller than the flu pandemics of the 1950s and 60s, when the world’s population was less than half that today.

Indeed, if you put the number of global deaths last year, this year, and next year (about 60 million each year) on a simple column chart you’ll struggle to see the ­impact of COVID-19.

Future historians will be shocked at the disproportionate response. At least they will chuckle at SAGE, the acronym for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the expert panel advising the British government, which has presided over the worst performance of any country.

But it wasn’t only the British. Experts in Sweden warned 100,000 would die by June if it didn’t lock down as the rest of Europe had, yet fewer than 5000 were lost. Experts said 420,000 might die in Japan without a hard lockdown. Fewer than 950 did.

Our own experts at the Doherty Institute said 5000 intensive care unit beds would be required, even with strict isolation and social distancing; fewer than 50 were needed. For anyone here who is worried about a second wave of COVID-19, we’re still waiting on the first one.

Climate modelling was struggling even before the pandemic, given the planet has warmed about half as much as forecast by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in back 1990.

“Almost the entire alarm about global warming is based on model predictions. If you just look at the last 30 to 40 years of data, nothing spectacular has happened, there’s no sign temperature increase is accelerating,” says Benny Peiser, founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.

It’s remarkable we put so much faith in expert models, given their history of failure. The Club of Rome in 1972 notoriously forecast that growth would collapse as the world’s resources ran out, ignoring human ingenuity and the shale revolution.

Financial models failed to account for — indeed they probably facilitated — the global financial crisis. And as almost every utterance by a central bank governor since has reminded us, economists struggle to know what happened last month, let alone forecast the impact of a policy change tomorrow.

“In the late 1990s, models suggested the entire Great Barrier Reef would bleach every year by 2020, but in the last 15 years parts of the reef have bleached on only three occasions, with each event affecting only one-third of the reef,” says physicist Peter Ridd, a former professor of James Cook University.

In the last 15 years parts of the Great Barrier reef have bleached on only three occasions.

It’s remarkable we put so much faith in climate modelling, given it is a far more complex task. “Climate sensitivity” — the size and speed of the response of global temperatures to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — is harder to predict than a spreading virus. Even if we knew it, drawing implications about future economic growth is even more heroic.

“The big mistake that’s clearly been made is the failure to systematically appraise the models that underpin policy with actual data,” notes Gordon Hughes, a former professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, speaking on a panel about the pitfalls of mathematical modelling last month.

By April, we knew the coronavirus was not as dangerous as feared yet modellers and governments doubled down on the catastrophe narrative. It’s almost July and people in our capitals are wearing masks in their own cars.

How can we avoid the hysteria next time? It won’t be easy. All the incentives are stacked in favour of dodgy doomsday modelling; apocalyptic scenarios allow politicians to increase their power and appear caring. Public health experts enjoy more prestige. And some of the media naturally prefer models with horrifying forecasts to draw eyeballs.

Humans have a natural tendency to focus on extremes — what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. Models are almost cartoons, highly simplified versions of reality. History has proved a better guide to the future. It’s a pity we’re wasting res­ources on a royal commission into the bushfires. How and why authorities have overreacted so much, and how we can avoid doing so again, would be a better line of inquiry.

ADAM CREIGHTON, ECONOMICS EDITOR

Adam Creighton is an award-winning journalist with a special interest in tax and financial policy. He was a Journalist in Residence at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in 2019.

=====================

Previous articles

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

    •  A sea of frothing, sweary, often pompous, intolerance  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 29 August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

    •  

January 2015

 

The Great Global Warming Hoax

By John Rofe, Auckland, New Zealand.

Editor’s note: this post comprises a series of emails and submissions to NZ Ministers, shadow Ministers and major NZ media describing the current global warming hoax, together with compelling supporting evidence.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2020 12:54 p.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Hon Nikki Kaye’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘alfred.ngaro@national.org.nz’; ‘shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘peter@lockfinance.co.nz’; ‘david.seymour@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Barry Brill’; ‘Geoff Duffy’; ‘John Ansell’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘leighton smith’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘newstalkzb’; ‘newsdesk herald’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘andrew.laxon@nzme.co.nz’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘Jim Tucker’
Subject: There is no embargo on the publication of the truth

Dear PM and Minister of Climate Change,

Please find attached a summary of the essential underlying facts after completion of my 15-year enquiry into the Great Global Warming Fraud.

This information may upset you, and if so I apologise for the shock.

In my next email I will provide all the evidence to support my claim that you each – as the Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change – have either failed to do proper due diligence before taking your actions to waste billions of taxpayer dollars, or else are simply committing malfeasance by lying to the public.  Given the warnings provided to you both over a three year period I believe I am justified in using the common term for malfeasance, rather than either “ignorance” or “stupidity”.

The problem for corrupt but powerful people like you is that the courts love empirical scientific evidence that is supported by inter-locking, self-evident truths.  It typically trumps big names, rock-star scientific reputations, foreign conspiracies and popular misconceptions.

Just as a series of Popes in the 16th and 17th centuries could not counter the fact that people woke every morning and observed the sun rise in the East then later set in the West, the self-evident truth was always that earth revolves around the sun and it rotates each day.  Luckily I am in the happy position of being able to show the public why your actions are so flawed.  The sun dominates our climate, as well as the climate of all other planets within the solar system.   When the self evident truths that we all see every day of the year are pointed out to the public, the game will be up.  You like everyone else will wonder how you could have been so gullible. 

There has never been any consensus among the scientific community about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because there has never ever been any empirical scientific evidence to support the fraudulent assertions of the UN IPCC.

The leaders of the world’s major (CO2) emitting countries, Messrs Modi, Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping are doubtless already aware of this.  That is why they are likely laughing at our leaders’ stupidity and why Putin is building floating nuclear power stations for the frozen Arctic regions (to ensure cooling water intakes cannot be iced up) while also completing his fleet of huge nuclear powered ice-breakers to cope with what they believe will be the cold of an unfolding Grand Solar Minimum (each ship has greater cost and tonnage than New Zealand’s entire Cook Strait ferry fleets) .  Forget what they say, look at what they are doing.  Their actions are informed by the expectation of cold rather than warmth.  But I don’t wish to buy into whether that will eventuate, although the change they expect seems on track at this point.

The major net CO2 emitters are clearly being differently advised to you, along the lines of this semi-audible 15-minute video clip below.  (Hint … this Russian expert is difficult to understand so you would be well advised to pause the video at each new slide he presents and read the slide while muting his talk.)  He is probably reading directly from it because of his limited English language skills.  At 3.00minutes his graph of the Vostok ice core analysis explains why during the Pleistocene era (the last 2,7 million years) CO2 has never influenced the global climate.  If you also look closely at the graph at 15-mins 23 secs, you will see the reduction in solar activity is exactly today what he predicted many years ago and then consistent again, during his talk in 2014 during the active peak of solar cycle 24.  He has the credibility of any scientist who can predict what is happening to the climate, using the “space weather” to confidently show his client, the Government of the Russian Federation, what they can expect.

Dr Habibulo Abdussamatov has been Director of the Pulkovo observatory and he ran the Russian scientific programme for the International Space Station.  His forecasts for a looming Grand Solar Minimum and “little Ice Age” date back many years and have in November 2019, finally been confirmed by NOAA and NASA.  I guess those two organisations are both now trying to work out how to escape their roles in the UN IPCC conspiracy as this email is being written.

For the last few years I have been monitoring the accuracy of Dr Abdussamatov’s predictions from the data shown on www.spaceweather.com .

Also from the work of several others.

At the end of June 2020 the world is still warm, if marginally cooler than it was during the previous months, however, the highly subjective and grossly inaccurate models that the UN IPCC use as the basis for their fraud are no substitute for the observed data.  This unimpeachable graph from the NASA satellites below shows the climate isn’t facing unprecedented warmth, despite deliberate lies to the contrary.  Nor is there any climate crisis as the changes are within natural variability.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2020_v6-550x317.jpg

The UN IPCC’s accepted models show three times the warming shown in the above graph.  You back their inaccurate and subjective models, I back the empirical data. 

The first news organisation or political party to agree to widely publish the attached page will get access to the “smoking gun” evidence that I hold…. before you do.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Private Fraud Investigator

See article on why whistleblowers are not heart: Many Whistleblowers – Yet Nothing to be Heard


===========================

A TALE OF FRAUD, COMPLICITY AND ARRANT STUPIDITY

THE GREAT UN IPCC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD AND ITS NEW ZEALAND AGENCY

As Albert Einstein is reputed to have said: 

“The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

Now think it through for yourself:

It is illogical to consider that three relatively ineffectual human-influenced greenhouse gases which in total are less than 4% of the volume of the far more potent gas (water vapour) can drive climate change, just because a group of bureaucrats at the United Nations say that it is “settled science”.  If one investigator, acting alone, can see through this fraud, then the New Zealand scientists have not performed any effective due diligence.

The Great Global Warming Fraud costs OECD countries between USD1-2 trillion every year.

The most important things you need to know are:

  • Methane and Nitrous Oxide have never had any proven impact on the earth’s climate.
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (“CO2”) is a more prolific greenhouse gas but…
    • There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 has ever had a material effect on earth’s climate.  The UN and their supporters have never offered any. Nor can they.
    • The proportion of CO2 emissions that humans influence is less than 5% of the total.
    • The main source of CO2 emissions is “ocean out-gassing” when it is warm.
    • CO2 is subject to the Beer-Lambert Law of Physics and therefore any thermal impact was almost saturated at the pre-industrial atmospheric level of 280ppm in 1850. 
    • CO2 is not a pollutant and “zero carbon” entails the end of all complex life on earth.
  • There was never any consensus to support this fraud…  http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • There is no climate crisis…  https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
  • Plants thrive with three times current levels of atmospheric CO2, (arguably in short supply).
  • The “Milankovich cycles” drive the 100,000-year climate cycles of ice ages and inter-glacials.
  • In between, climate change is dominated by the sun which supplies 99.5% of earth’s energy.
  • The Solar Cycles conform to the Holocene pattern of 200-year periods of extreme cold.
  • The great majority of the earth’s population is led by people who don’t bow to this fraud.
  • Few of those who signed up to the Paris accords have either the intention or ability to comply.  It is impossible for New Zealand, even with total support, to get any value from this.

I warned the Government in 2018 of their likely complicity in a serious fraud.  The Minister prevaricated so I warned him in 2019 of the actionable basis for a possible fraud complaint. 

As a result of their intransigence, I now see no alternative than to accuse the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern and the Honourable James Shaw of both fraud and deceptive and miss-leading conduct.  I stand ready to support those serious accusations, as and when called upon to do so.

John Rofe, Private Fraud Investigator                                                        Auckland, New Zealand,  10.7.2020

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2020 12:40 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: Really Big frauds inevitably require bigger and bigger lies…then the child soldiers are weaponised once the biggest lie of all loses its credibility

Hi Politicians,

Each of you, by signature to the Zero Carbon legislation is now guilty of fraud; and of both complicity in, and actively promoting carbon trading Ponzi schemes.  These are criminal offences and I am directly accusing you of at least being accessories to criminality, along with Antonio Guterres and his fellow travellers.

I have told you before, there is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be laid bare to public scrutiny and opprobrium.   So you need to come clean.

If not, then gather your evidence (if any real evidence exists) and lets litigate.  I simply want evidence that human CO2 emissions have any material effect on climate change.  After two years of asking for this I will continue to accuse you of fraud until you deliver it.  As a taxpayer I am entitled to an explanation for your actions – as is everyone.

From 15+ years of my research into the spurious UN IPCC claims, I have found there is no justification for any spending on attempting to reduce “climate change” because the only measurable effects of the human use of the fossil fuels since 1850 has been the increase in atmospheric CO2, the increased wealth and well-being of all humanity from abundant and cheap energy and the greening of planet earth as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.  But because of the long duration of CO2 within the atmosphere, and because human actions account for less than 4.3% of all CO2 emissions (as accepted by UN IPCC) there is absolutely no possibility of confidence that a reduction in human emissions could cause the future level of atmospheric CO2 to fall.  Natural variability could even cause it to increase, despite controlled draconian global attempts at human reduction, which will never happen.

As there are still far more countries planning to increase CO2 emissions than those trying either successfully or  unsuccessfully to control them, there is zero chance of any credible reduction in human emissions being made within the next 10-20 years.

The only thing your misguided actions can achieve is to destroy the reputation of science and the scientific method, to go hand in hand with destruction of our economy.  All this to bring about the enrichment of a few of your fellow travellers and higher energy costs for those least able to afford them.

Each adult human inhales a tiny 4 ppm of CO2 to go with 20% O2.  We exhale air heated to body temperature, with 100% relative humidity and CO2 emissions at 4% (or 40,000ppm).  So our inhalations cleanse and oxygenate our blood and we emit 100 times the CO2 we inhaled.  The oxygen exhaled is reduced to 15% or less.  Given the weight of CO2, we each exhale about 360kgs of CO2 per annum.  Animals many time more – or less.  What do you want to do?  Tax us for our exhalations?

Contrary to your advice from the UN IPCC and your ignorant cabal of “junk” scientists, (by both satellite imagery and experimentation) the increase in atmospheric CO2 has already benefitted all plant life, and will continue to do so.  It increases the vigour of plant growth and makes all plants more drought resistant.  There is and has never been any evidence that CO2 is a pollutant and together with water and oxygen, CO2 is one of three reasons that complex life exists on earth, whereas it exists nowhere else in the solar system.  If the atmospheric CO2 concentration falls to 150ppm  or less, then all life on earth will die and the carbon cycle may end.

We are carbon based life forms and our extinction as an apex mammal would likely be an early effect of low atmospheric CO2.

There has never been any evidence that CO2 has either been a significant influence on climate change as atmospheric CO2 levels have always been a trailing indicator of major temperature fluctuations for as long as scientists could perform their experiments and calculations.  It is generally accepted that ocean de-gassing of CO2 occurs when it is warming, and conversely taking up more CO2  when the atmosphere has been cooling, is the cause for this.  There is even a lag time due to the fact that the ocean takes longer to take up heat and to cool, than does land.

The solar and space weather sciences, together with all the known history of the solar cycles and the Milankovich cycles are an extra-terrestrial cause for the variations in earth’s climate and together with the attempts within the seas and atmosphere to equalise heat distribution as the earth rotates, these account for climate change and  remove any justification for your erroneous presumption that humans have a significant effect on climate.  Localised warming yes, but it dissipates with no significant, measurable effect on climate change.  The extremely active solar cycles of the 20th century alone account for the increases in temperature of earth’s climate during the modern warm period, which despite the deliberate “official”  doctoring of temperature records have only achieved a total increase of 1.1 degree Centigrade between the year 1850 and December 2019.  That is, over a period of 169 years.  So the average increase during that period is well within natural variability.  Forecasts of sea level rise and atmospheric heating made by the UN IPCC junk scientists are simply ridiculous.  But they do show that junk scientists will do anything for money.  Yet still, one by one, they defect.

For politicians of any colour to support the fraud, you must first be prepared to believe that an improbable theory promulgated to advantage sectional interests is superior to the existence of the Beer-Lambert Law of science, because that law already relegates all increases in CO2 to having an inconsequential impact on thermal uptake and therefore climate, at even the pre-industrial levels (i.e. about 280ppm).  Atmospheric CO2 is already thermally saturated and can provide no significant future effect within an enormous time horizon.

You have been taken for idiots by a small group of extremely well paid and funded scientists, UN politicians and their bureaucrats, most of whom have no idea about climate science.  Simply put…from the Google search below… the “we” is you…

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”

“(Sir Walter Scott) Whenever we deceive others, in order to make things better for ourselves in the moment, we deceive ourselves most of all.Oct 25, 2017

If you want to prove that human CO2 emissions have a dominant effect on climate, meet me in court.  I will be happy to litigate this as soon as you are ready.  I want a trial date…so come and get me before I go public, along the lines of my 1 January trial run in the NZ Herald.  A copy of that is at the top of the page.

Your fraud is now pretty obvious, and all the world’s delusional Greta Thunbergs cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry.  Now your “tangle” only gets tortuous as any fair-minded person would accept from the detail below…

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

The following advertisement was placed in the NZ Herald Public Notices on 1 January 2020:

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 2:08 p.m.
To: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘John Ansell’
Subject: Merry Christmas

Dear politicians,

In 2018 I warned of the dire consequences of failing to check the science you rely on for public policy settings over climate change.  I warned of the climate phenomena appearing that supported the narrative that we are probably moving into a Grand Solar Minimum.

In 2019 I laid complaints with the NZ Serious Fraud Office and the NZ Commerce Commission regarding your demonstrably false climate change narrative.  Naturally the complaints came to nothing.  I noted the radical shortening of the Northern growing seasons that have further reduced for each year from 2017, 2018 and again in 2019.  I commented on the signs that food shortages will soon loom large due to cold climate crop losses.  The only certainty at this point is that food costs will head much higher in 2020, because despite shortages, we humans can possibly adapt to cope and farmers will now start changing their cropping choices.

In 2020 the earth will reach the bottom of the eleven year solar cycle numbered 24, and it will start into solar cycle number 25.  So the best Christmas present I can offer you is to explain why the solar cycles are so important.  NASA, NOAA, the Russians and the Chinese have indicated that solar cycle 25 will be the least active for at least 100 years and many experts claim the unfolding Grand Solar Minimum will be a 200 year event.

1. The successive ice ages on earth during the 2.5 million year Pleistocene era have historically been triggered by what is known as Milankovich cycles (now generally accepted).  These consist of three separate cycles referred to as “the Tilt variation of earth from the sun”, “the Obliquity of earth’s motion through space”, and “Eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun”.  Of these three cycles the most influential is eccentricity and it takes around 100,000 years to happen.  Our civilisation has only begun during the latest 10-12,000 year interglacial period we live in called the “Holocene”, which has now lasted for at least 11,500 years.  A plunge into extreme glaciations is now probably due.  It was alluded to by the expert climate scientists during the 1970’s when earths average temperature had cooled by about 0.4 degrees C., from 1945.  No-one actually knows when it will happen.

2. Within the Holocene period,  The time of maximum warmth due to natural cycles is said to have already passed and it is considered that the Minoan Warm period 3,500 years ago was when that occurred.  So there is good evidence available that points to earth’s average temperatures today being some 2-3 degrees C. cooler than the Holocene temperature maximum.  There are possibly two certainties that will affect us.  The first is that the solar cycles with rising and falling levels of electromagnetic activity will drive the natural climate variations on planet earth as they will the climates of the other planets within our solar system since the beginning of time.  The second certainty (well an extremely high probability) is that at some point the Milankovich cycles will usher in the return of a period of extensive glaciation that is similar to previous ice ages.

3.  Full ice ages with extensive glaciations must be accepted as near certain extinction-level events.  The significance for New Zealand is less onerous than for others, yet that may mean a progressive but effective end to agriculture in the South Island…. as and when it occurs.

4. Our recorded history of the impact of varying levels of solar activity really began with the Maunder Minimum (1645AD-1715AD) but these provided a mathematical trace back to earlier Grand Solar Minimums before the birth of Christ.  Grand Solar Minimums coincide with the coldest periods of “the Little Ice Age” (which ran from about 1280AD – 1870AD).  They also align well with the record of famines and the fall of dynasties in China.  Both the Russian and the Chinese governments take the science behind Grand Solar Minimums very seriously and use the known cycles for their strategic planning.  As a result I commend the history of Grand Solar Minimums to the attention of yourselves and your Civil Defence personnel.

5.  Space exploration and remote climate monitoring only really began in about 1979.  Today the probing of solar influence is a regular event and the effect of the solar cycles on earth’s weather is well-known if suppressed by the mainstream media.

6.  So my Christmas present to you is to provide my personal understanding of how Grand Solar Minimums likely affect the earth’s climate

This will be extremely topical because many believe we have entered a cooling cycle that will last until 2055.  Some believe it will last much longer.  The data supports this conclusion.  The data does not support suggestions that humans, CO2 build-up and/or CH4 build-up cause climate change.  So I think this topic is well worth spending some time on.

The principle indicator of solar electromagnetic activity is visible to humans by virtue of the number of sunspots appearing on the face of the sun each day.  These are carefully counted and conform to maxima and minima based on the stage of the eleven year solar cycles.  Solar minimums are marked by no sunspots appearing for days or even months.  There is a huge and growing body of solid science surrounding this topic.

If we look at the regular eleven year minimum that occurred between solar cycles 23 and 24, there have been 70 sunspot free days in 2006 (or 19 %), in 2007 there have been 152 sunspot free days (or 42 %) and in 2008 there were 268 days (or 73%).  In the tail end of solar cycle 24 there have been considerably more sunspot-free days.  With 2017 at  104 days (compared with 70 in sc23), in 2018 at 220 days (compared with 152 in sc23).  With the year almost up in 2019 the percentage of spot-free days already stands at 76% compared with 73% in 2008.  This signals how the sun is rapidly becoming less active.  From the attached link to a schematic of solar cycles you can see how the eleven year solar cycles vary and in particular the low sunspot numbers of the Dalton Minimum in the early 19th century.

https://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html

The reduced solar activity has a number of effects.  First the Total Solar Insolation which strikes earth’s atmosphere is reduced.  The second is that the earth’s Thermosphere tends to thin and become colder.  This  variation to earths outer temperature is indicative of what is to come… as we move towards the solar minimum in 2020…

“Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 3.26×1010 W Cold
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
explanation | more data: gfxtxt
Updated 08 Dec 2019”

With reduced solar activity, the solar wind drops.  It is the solar wind which keeps cosmic rays from flooding the galaxy.  The solar wind is also the reason the tails of comets point away from the sun and not at the direction the comet has come from.  So a key measure of the space weather is the solar wind strength and density…

Solar wind
speed: 353.3km/sec
density: 5.0protons/cm3
explanation | more data
Updated: Today at 2116 UT”

There are always cosmic rays intruding in our atmosphere and they result in the increased nucleation of water vapour into low level clouds.  The cloud cover is the primary reflective umbrella for earth, with usually about 65% cloud cover.  So only about 56% of the sun’s rays hit the earth’s surface and any contribution to increasing cloud cover has a net cooling effect.

The Earth is once again being bombarded by the highest intrusion of cosmic rays for the space age…

This below is a snap shot of the current stats from www.spaceweather.com that suggest to me the highest influx of galactic cosmic rays will occur in 2020-2021.

“Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +10.9% Very High
7-day change: +3.3%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
explanation | more data
Updated 08 Dec 2019 @ 1800 UT”

The solar electromagnetic variation affects earth’s magnetosphere and there is some evidence that the tectonic plates are affected by the changed gravitational effects and by the effect of cosmic rays on sub-surface magma.  However I am not sure how reliable the correlations are between Grand Solar Minimums and volcanism.  Even so the fact that 80% of all volcanoes are under the oceans and they have the potential to heat deep ocean water in a way the surface temperatures cannot, suggests they may have a far greater impact on New Zealand’s eventual weather than anyone acknowledges.  Our climate is maritime by nature, so we are less likely to be affected by cooling solar influences while our oceans remain warm.

So to summarise, the likely effects of the space weather on the climate of earth includes:

1. Variations in Total Solar Insolation (not very large but certainly these are grossly under-rated by the UN IPCC).

2. Variations in the Thermosphere Climate Index because when it cools and thins, the loss of heat at night via infra-red radiation will be greater.

3. Variations in the cosmic ray influx affecting the formation of low level cloud.  This is a climatic feature attributed to large scale flooding and heavy snows during Grand Solar Minimums.

4.  There is a poorly understood effect on both the Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere jet streams which leads to them slowing and meandering closer to the Equator.  This leads to reduced temperatures where the loops venture into lower latitudes and higher  temperatures in the higher latitudes when the jet streams venture outside their normal routes.  Historically, we are told this accounts for the massive floods of the so-called “Dark Ages” and the “Little Ice Age”.

From what I can tell from the historical records, the advent of a 200 year cyclic Grand Solar Minimum doesn’t seem to dramatically alter the earth’s average temperature, but it does alter the climate of normally temperate or warm zones.  Hence the snowing in places like the Serengeti, the Sahara and Saudi Arabia in 2018.

In 2019 the effects of the “Eddy” Grand Solar Minimum have become obvious and this has led to recognition by NASA  that the earth is headed for a period of cooling.  Yet all mention of the solar cycles is still absolutely banned from mention in the mainstream media.

Russia and China are already taking emergency steps to protect their food supplies.

Yet you remain asleep at the wheel.   New Zealand is exposed, despite the kindness of our maritime climate.

So may I suggest you give this some thought when you are choosing what to read during your Christmas holidays.  Books by John L Casey such as “Cold Sun” or “Dark Winter” from your local library could be a good start.

Anyway,  I have retired as a Justice of the Peace to eliminate any suggestions of conflict of interest when I plan my year of action.  So 2020 is going to be a whole new “ball game” for me.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 9:46 a.m.
To: ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’
Cc: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: The abject fear of answering three simple questions

Hi Newshounds,

Humour me.  You will find it worthwhile…because you too were either fooled into drinking the populist Koolaid about climate change, or there are powers that control your news reporting that make our world an Orwellian nightmare, and our freedoms lost.  More factual evidence has been presented in previous submissions .

We have entered an era where there are today, arguably more than five times the number of “scientists” who have ever lived before them.  Many ignore the “scientific method” when it is more convenient to “lose it”.  The contestability test is subordinated to the popularity of a theory.

They now tell us which toothpaste to use and which drugs are good and which are bad,  and in most cases they espouse an undisclosed business, or political reason for doing so.  This deception is nowhere more prevalent than the area of climate science where fake news is promoting an orthodox agenda of various trans-national groups, and now this and its sub plots have become the biggest-ever fraud in human history.  Real conservation has been prostituted in favour of fakery.  Yet the science at the heart of the paradigm is missing and can never be discussed in polite company.

And now we have the 11,000 pseudo-scientists’ report – really a blog opinion piece with the “likes” of others signified – heralded as yet another scientific breakthrough.

This is the latest of the faux authoritative scientific studies… https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

The surveyor of opinions was an obscure forestry blog site at Oregon U., masquerading as a reputable international group of scientists,  and an initial critique is contained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=youtu.be

The survey was treated as a learned and peer reviewed research paper, whereas it was really a simple survey of folk who may for whatever reason be willing to share the writers’ opinions and while ‘Professor Mickey Mouse’ and ‘Professor Albus Dumbledore’ of Harry Potter fame were originally respondents, the list was edited to remove anyone who didn’t look worth the “powder and shot” to present their survey. The pruning supposedly was very severe.

This is a critique…  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/who_are_these_11000_concerned_scientists.html

To check the criticism I have just waded through the entire 323 pages of the names of the “11,000” so-called “knowledgeable scientists” (following editing) providing the latest faux warning of climate Armageddon at this link below.  

 

The kindest things I can say about the New Zealand based contributors to the survey is this:

1. They seem to be well educated, but generally do not seem to have relevant experience in the subject matter of the dire warning to humanity.

2. I doubt they can have known that they were click bait for promoting eugenics as part of this.

3. Of the 230+  Kiwis who put their names, occupations and employment details forward in the survey, there would be less than 5 (possibly only 2) with relevant climate science qualifications and experience who I would wish to consult on this subject.

4. The largest cadre were computer scientists, either Emeritus Professors, Professors, Associate Professors, computer analysts or Lecturers (I suppose they must therefore receive some NZ Government  incentive for noting their agreement to the questionnaire).  Lots of people who work for the NZ Institute for Plant and Food Research popped up too….did someone organise mass support for the individual “likes”? 

5. I couldn’t find any names of the NZ climate scientists I am familiar with.

But I will give the Kiwi respondents the benefit of the doubt because among these folk, there must surely be at least one who can answer the following questions that none of the known climate scientists can answer (certainly not the PM’s science adviser – Professor Juliet Gerrard – see also the letter from the CEO of the Environomics (NZ) Trust above):

1.  What empirical evidence is there that changes in the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide are able to alter the climate and what evidence is there that it ever has to date?  (After all, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm since the end of “the Little Ice Age” in 1880, to 415ppm at the present date so surely there is clear evidence one way or the other?)

2. What evidence is there that human emissions of CO2 and CH4 act as atmospheric pollutants?

3. What evidence is there that it is possible for humans to reduce the atmospheric level of CO2 by a sufficient amount to reduce the Global Mean Surface Temperature by even one tenth of one degree Centigrade below that which would otherwise obtain from natural causes or the actions of others, by the year 2100?

In 2020 these questions will be a big deal for the PM and the Minister of Climate Change.  You see I am not only a private fraud investigator but I already warned them last year that these are essential planks that support the legitimacy or criminality of their actions.  Failing to answer which, they are at best promoting a fraud, because you see, they say they are implementing policies because the UN IPCC says they should.  No-one, anywhere in the world has, or would be brave enough (or perhaps stupid enough) to provide answers to the three questions I have been asking over the 40 years that this runaway deception has been rolling….

If I were sick of drinking beer and said the only reason I drink it is because “Big Terry” drinks it, that would be OK.   But I am not hurting anyone by failing to make enquiry of my options.

But the response from the Minister of Climate Change (that I have in writing) admits he is committed to his course of action because the UN IPCC and their tame cabal of supposedly orthodox scientists says he should.   And that is not OK because it is the least financially robust of our citizens who will ultimately bear the cost of this fraud.

So who is running this government programme?    PM Jacinda Ardern regards this “fraud” (my word not hers) as her administration’s defining issue.  So why is she going to waste billions of our money to satisfy her and past PM Helen Clark’s Socialist mates at the UN – when there is not a scintilla of scientific justification and yet huge cost?   The ploy of claiming the science is proven when it isn’t, is not a tenable position for our activist government to take when damaging whole industry sectors.  Ministers of the Crown have a fiduciary duty of care to act for proper purpose and I argue that in the case of their climate change bigotry they are not…or at least cannot possibly….demonstrate they are doing so.

In a detailed and fully-referenced paper, Wellington researcher/analyst Barbara McKenzie has published a withering rebuttal of the New Zeaand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s comments in a speech lauding ther passage in the NZ Parliament of the so-called Zero Carbon Bill.Ms McKenzie writes: “Jacinda Ardern calls [the bill] the ‘nuclear moment for this generation.” What she means, of course, is that Parliament is in effect nuking the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand environment on the back of what is frequently referred to as the greatest hoax in the history of science.”Later in the paper, Ms McKenzie says any MP who claims to take an interest in the climate debate must know “Jacinda’s speech was a pack of lies.”

LINK

If you look at my previous correspondence it isn’t that I have not given the Government fair warning.  What we, the people must demand is the truth about the core issue.  This is not about partisan politics nor a criticism of National and NZ First folding their principles to a wasteful piece of legislation.

If the answers to three simple questions are provided and these do actually hold water, I will go quietly into the night.

But remember that in exercising your power of editing or ignoring this information, you have already, by accident or design, ignored numerous warnings of climate Armageddon that have been proven wrong year after year, since 1989 and some before, including Prince Charles, the Duke of Edinburgh, several heads of the United Nations and heads of global corporations.

So we have a dominant paradigm that is nothing more than a 40 year fraud, with numerous subsidiary frauds appended to it.

As Jack Nicholson’s character said in “A Few Good Men”,  “The truth?  You can’t handle the truth!”

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2019 5:55 p.m.
To: ‘todd.muller@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘scott.simpson@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘simon.bridges@national.org.nz‘; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz
Subject: A short look at Vladimir’s view of the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum contrasted with that of a knowledgeable US farmer
Importance: High

Gentlemen,

It is still too early to see what sort of damage is occurring in the Northern hemisphere due to the approach of the Eddy Minimum.  But the folk at the web site Adapt 2030 have the best window on the 2019 crop losses at this 4 minute video below.  The losses in 2017 and 2018 were not visible because inventory movements masked them.  This year may be the first of many where that becomes impossible…

https://youtu.be/hUOBKTarY5Y

The weather these folk speak of is only relevant, insofar as the early autumnal blizzards are covering crops before they can be harvested.  So every USDA and other forecast of crop levels is being sequentially reduced as they factor in more and more bad news.  How serious will it get? It is too early to tell.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin know exactly what is happening.  The Chinese have more than 2,000 years of records of solar cycles and can point to the critical impacts of Grand Solar Minimums, like the current one.  There is a near precise correlation between these and the famines that have affected China for the last two millennia .  Matching that timing has been the sequential overthrow of the Chinese dynasties.  Xi Jinping’s planning is obvious and has been underway for at least ten years.  He knows they have not done enough and are being forced to talk trade with Trump in order to get supplies from a US President who doesn’t yet know that he may not have the supplies to meet even a USD50 billion order (or so the American farmers believe).  But for his government Xi knows what is coming is a potentially existential threat for the CCP.

But today I will restrict this email to Russia.  Their space agency collects the same space weather data that NASA does in the USA.  Putin’s principle adviser if the head of the Pulkovo observatory, and the head of the Russian space programme for the International Space Station – a guy called Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov.

I don’t want you to read this stuff at the link below in detail, but a glance would be informative.  It is indicative of the depth of understanding the Russians have for a subject that is strictly banned in the Western media while, the UN pursues global hegemony – focused on warming rather than either the facts or the science.  This is a link to some of his research…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdussamatov

and

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2011474380_Habibullo_I_Abdussamatov

The actions of the Russian Government are pretty transparent to anyone monitoring the international media (that part which is not affected by Soros, Turner, the Rothschilds and their affiliated three deep state cabals).   While PM Scott Morrison of Australia recently took a firm line with the UN interference in Australian policy two weeks ago (and it never got into the NZ media), three months ago a lecture was given to the Russian press corps by Sergei Lavrov on what the government saw as the biggest existential threat to the Russian Federation – the New World Order being promoted by the UN and the same deep state actors that control the Western media.

Meantime, President Putin has focused his international diplomacy on making friends with every country to the South of Russia and with China.  The Middle East is the new theatre of influence as Russia realises growing seasons will keep shortening.  The strategy to capture the Crimean Peninsula was part of this as was his support for Syrian President Assad.  Murmansk in the West, Syria in the South, Iran in the near East and Vladivostok in the East are strategically linked to the North by his six tiny ice-breakers (a joke)… each has two large nuclear power plants pushing huge propellers, and because the Western Siberian oilfield is substantially depleted, they are following the field offshore into the Kara Sea.  So he has oil tankers to be towed through sheet ice from time to time.  Here is a short video of one of them…does it look like he expects the Arctic Sea Ice to disappear any time soon?

https://youtu.be/bKaVhXn49xY

At home the emergency food planning has been in place for some time.  While Putin has made a big thing about helping the Chinese out, his resource is limited.  But the build of granaries has been well under way and with Grand Solar Minimums the cold is not linear, there will be good years during the 11 year solar cycles and bad years …but more bad years than usual.  Subject to restrictions and embargoes he is reducing the US dollar debt he is holding and converting it into gold, increasing Russia’s bullion holdings, year on year.  He has built and deployed one floating nuclear power station which will be based in the Russian Arctic.  More may follow.

Elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere, regional rivals, PM Modi and PM Khan also understand what is happening but their preparations are less effectual.  Already hit by extensive flooding, peasant farmers will do the best they can.

The farming communities in Europe, USA, Japan and elsewhere are waking up because farmers are on the front line.  Every time there are crop losses the farmers become twitchy.  They lose their farms.  In New Zealand, ours’ is a maritime climate and with warm seas (relatively) we have a farming holiday for a little while longer.

But for the entire continent of North America on average, the 2019 harvest will be a huge disaster.  We have not been allowed by our news media to know that the period from October 2018 to May 2019 has been the coldest and also the wettest in over 100 years.  With growing seasons shortening each year for the last three years.  The Chinese are aware of this and yet they will still try to wring every shipload of oats, soya beans, corn, rice, hogs etc from the USA that they can get.  They have also increased their buying from Canada, who will similarly experience difficulties meeting the Chinese purchase orders.  This will affect New Zealand because when we changed Canterbury farms from cereals to dairy, we became dependent on Australia.  This year Australia plans to import from Canada and will not be an exporter at all.

Some North American farmer blog sites are full of the unfolding drama.  This particular farmer in the link below usually chronicles the moves in the weather extremes and comments on the harvest data.  But in this link he unloads on the causation.  From my knowledge of what is happening, he isn’t far wrong…

https://youtu.be/jbsslmdxvhc

The Eddy Grand Solar Minimum is something we cannot change but we can plan for how it will affect our country.  Perhaps the first thing for your shadow ministers is to understand that Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a fraud.  It has nothing to do with the science or climate, because it is just about transference of the power of national governments to the UN.

The second thing is to have at least one of each of your assistant’s, take an interest in the data appearing on  www.spaceweather.com .  The left hand third of the web site pages is devoted to the unfolding statistics.  The sun is now the quietest it has been since the beginning of the space age and this solar minimum is still deepening.

Can I draw your attention to my summary of the cause of climate change as per the two MS Word documents attached above.

You will see from that and the Farmer’s graphs that the true cause of the “Modern Warm Period” following the end of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1850, was the extraordinary solar activity of the 20th century.  The sun was then its most active in at least 4,000 years.  That isn’t hypothesis, it is published solar science.

I do hope you make good use of this or at least have your staff do so.

By Christmas we will probably know the true dimension of the unfolding crop losses.  I hope I am wrong.  The last time there was a Grand Solar Minimum (the Dalton Minimum) the global population was only about 950 million.  Then most people grew their own food and did not have brittle supply chains and JIT planning.  How will we get on with 7.7 billion?

It will be bad, but just how bad?  We must wait for Christmas.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

A Concerned Citizen.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2019 9:57 a.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘news@press.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘contact@comcom.govt.nz’
Subject: The truth always comes out sooner or later

Dear Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change,

This email will provide people with an opportunity to choose sides, whether to be “part of the problem or part of the solution”.

I hope those who receive this long message will take the time to print it and its attachments, and also take the time to view any video footage it contains.  You have had time to verify the science and there seems no point in allowing you to continue to attack the New Zealand economy in support of whatever your true ends may be.  So I will publish this as widely as I can.

This email is about the New Zealand section of the biggest and most egregious political crime in human history, now requiring an urgent political solution.  But I think many who receive this email will already know that.  You also know that.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

Last week a sub-set of the world’s real scientists provided a rebuttal to the climate alarmism you espouse so fervently…

 

Yet you will ignore it and shrug off its logic.  For me?  I am just a fraud investigator, so I have sat between the competing perspectives of science, to form my own view of the facts irrespective of my financial interests.  You will ignore these at your peril.

Please find attached above in two single page Word documents, the core summary of the climate facts, together with a copy of the satellite temperatures since the tamper-proof records began in 1979.  There is no climate crisis.  There is no man-made global warming.  There is no need to demonise the naturally occurring gases CO2 and CH4 as pollutants, when they are both essential to the survival of all species on planet earth and already in short supply for plant life.  There is no need to drive worried farmers to either depression or off their land.

My allegations of fraud against you are simple and easily substantiated by the facts of your complicity.

Supporting Background Information

15 years ago I started investigating this criminality from the standpoint of a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming theory and wanted to know why people rebelled against a logical perspective of science that was claimed to be so settled.  Alas, the first thing I discovered was the only reason the science was claimed to be “settled” was because it couldn’t stand any real scrutiny.  It was always a simple political scam as scams go – as simple as the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, where the mythical tailors wanting the king’s money, claimed only fools could see the King was wearing no clothes at all. 

So by 2003 when the theory was comprehensively disproven, the UN IPCC backers changed the term for “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and then set out to claim there was a consensus supporting the science…. and then began to demonise the vast body of serious scientists as “Climate Change Deniers”.   The UN IPCC and their backers’ power base is so huge,  obvious and corrupt, as they secured for their “anointed ones” 3 Nobel Peace Prizes and 1 Nobel Prize for Economics…and locked false scientific claims within Wikipedia.  From BBC to “Stuff”  no major media organisation will now allow the truth to be spoken. 

How sick is that?  Science is meant to thrive on scrutiny, yet this junk science does not.

The Great Global Warming Fraud has only been possible for four reasons…

1. We humans do warm our surroundings with a mixture of exotic and natural fuels.

2. We humans have no idea about the composition and chemistry of the air we breathe or how our exhalations are valued by other life forms.  Air is simply taken for granted.

3. We humans are so successful that since 1750, humans and their livestock have gone from comprising about 7% of the world’s land mammals to over 98%;  leaving a trail of species extinctions and pollution behind as we have done so.  Now we worry about resource depletion and over-full waste sinks.

4. We want to do the right thing to “save the planet” and eagerly follow any sensible consensus on how to do that.

More than a year ago I started writing to the three of you (our NZ Government’s coalition leaders), to warn you that you could soon – by your actions – become accessories to the Great Global Warming Fraud.  This was met with distain as per the attached message from Minister Shaw who seemed unfazed by the allegations of fraud I made… (see the Adobe file linked above).  But I did recognise that as a well-rehearsed legal defence against probable fraud charges.

Because your responsible Minister prevaricated, I laid a complaint with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in April 2019 and followed that up with complaints about the misconduct of your Minister of Climate Change (and his political party) to the NZ Commerce Commission.  On 15 May 2019, (see the fourth linked Word document above) I made sure you understood the substance of my complaint, by copy of a letter sent to Minister Shaw and your Deputy PM, which noted three causes of potential criminal action regarding your deliberate and false misrepresentations and the fact that criminality in another jurisdiction is no excuse for committing crimes within New Zealand… 

The causes of action where you now stand accused ( or from your point of view, seek vindication) are simply… 

1.            That changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) have no impact on climate change.

2.            That carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is not a pollutant, but a gas essential for all life on earth. CH4 rapidly converts to H2O and CO2, upon contact with the atmosphere.

3.            Your “climate change” spending cannot possibly have any measurable impact on earth’s climate.

You, together with your international associates have dreamed up a non-existent crisis that will soon be revealed for all to see as a simple fraud from which the various Ponzi schemes grow and for a time will thrive – but to no legitimate purpose.   When the weather once again changes into severe cooling mode, to reflect the ever-changing solar cycles that drive earth’s climate, the public will react against your obvious lies and lose confidence in you and all politicians. 

Because I have some investments which may already be benefitting from the Great Global Warming Fraud, I was persuaded by some friends to call you to account.  Frankly,  I don’t want to benefit from your criminality, if your actions are proven to be so.  Nor do I want to abandon my renewable energy investments. 

But how did I go from being a believer in the well-orchestrated  lies, to being an active sceptic, now demanding your immediate resignation?

1.  In 1998 a survey of reputable scientists was performed that revealed 31,487, including more than 7,000 with PhD qualifications, had no time for the theory that the modern warming is man-made.

2.  I found the regularly used mantra that  “97% of all scientists supporting the UN IPCC science”  to be a subsidiary fraud and when I looked at the sources being given for the fictional consensus, I found them to be total garbage.

3.  The hyping of sea level change to a height which is thermodynamically impossible was a worry for me.

4.  The reduction in Arctic sea ice extent is being over-hyped.  These days the UN IPCC simply chooses dates to begin sea ice graphs at a date when the ice extent and thickness reached a cyclic maximum and thereby uses the subsequent downward trend to deliberately mislead the public.  The UN IPCC sea ice graphs begin in 1979 when the earth’s climate had cooled significantly from the early 1940’s.  If they had started in 1972 they would see that NASA has satellite photos of the sea ice at the end of that summer melt that were almost identical to the extent the satellite photo at the end of the 2018 summer melt.  I have viewed all those photos and am aware the sea ice extent was far less in 1941 and 1942 when the Arctic convoys ferried supplies from the UK to Murmansk.

5.  In the last 3 years the ice load on Greenland has grown by about 1.2 trillion tonnes.  Where is that in the news?  It does have an effect on sea levels whereas sea ice has no effect.

6.  The polar bears were being hunted to extinction in 1967 and so in 1973 the Arctic Treaty nations placed a moratorium on hunting, save for limited Inuit rights in Canada.  Since then their numbers have grown to the point where they now actively predate on Inuit villages, who want culling to be reintroduced.  Polar bears survived and prospered during the Holocene climate maximum called the “Minoan Warm Period”, through the “Roman Warm Period” and the “Mediaeval Warm Period”.  These warm periods were all considerably warmer than our climate is today.  So fear mongering about the impact on polar bears from loss of sea ice is facile.  The same with so-called “all time heat records” that can only be described in derisory terms. 

6.  When polar bears attack the huge herds of walrus on dry land, some walrus have throughout recorded history been seen to get pushed off cliffs by the crush of others.  They breathe the same air that we do so they prefer to haul out in large numbers (for protection) on dry land near their shallow feeding grounds.  We are told they are sad about climate change.  How can they be?  They are thriving, just like the polar bears. 

7.  Obviously naive funding agencies can get any report they want from venal scientists if those scientists’ tenure is at stake or they are paid enough.  Lysenkoism is extant everywhere I look within the OECD and I despair when watching TV to see yet another phony scientist coming up with implausible studies, which have been funded on the sole basis that they will reinforce the UN IPCC disinformation.

What are the Russians, Indians and Chinese doing to comply with this man-made global warming hoax and with the Paris Accords?  Heck, they don’t even believe the UN IPCC dogma even though they profit from it.  They have each been preparing for the coming Grand Solar Minimum for at least the last 5-10 years.  Look at their preparations.  If you don’t believe me, you could try Googling  the name of  Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov (the scientist who runs the Pulkovo observatory and the Russia programmes on the International Space Station – Vladimir Putin listens to his advice) and you will be able to understand the Russian strategies in the Middle East, why they have built a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers capable of towing oil tankers through 2 metre thick sheet ice, and why they needed to annex Crimea…all part of the same strategy.  “Winter is coming, Jon Snow!”

It is the same with China and their “String of Pearls” and Silk Road  construction,  together with the diversification of food sources into South America and Africa.  They are already in food trouble that will manifest this winter.  They have records that show whenever there has been a cyclic “Grand Solar Minimum” over the last 2,000 years there has also been both famine and the collapse of China’s major dynasties.  They accept Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions, given the changes now underway.  I can neither confirm nor reject those forecasts of approaching cold, but you must be made aware that others who have expert knowledge now consider them valid and urgent.

Check this desperate cry for help from Australian sceptics as they pay higher and higher power prices that are based on policies grounded on fraud and disinformation…(This is shown in the third attached Word document above)…

How many of those 31, 487 scientists who have dissented from the UN IPCC’s  politically inspired disinformation programme are allowed to give TV or newspaper commentaries?  Only one in a thousand.  Each year, more of those who work on the mischievously inaccurate computer models on which the overhyped heating claims by the UN IPCC rest, defect to the sceptic camp providing information on how desperately flowed the models and resulting forecasts really are.  The sceptics are either ignored or driven from their jobs, denied publication of their learned, peer reviewed scientific papers and treated like “holocaust deniers” by the likes of smug, self satisfied media presenters who refer to their legitimate scepticism by the derogatory term “Climate Change Deniers”.  Sceptics are never allowed to write the truth about the subject of climate change by mainstream media publications (including such as the NZ Herald and other rags, in favour of “puff pieces” of no journalistic or scientific merit.  These do get taken to print without question or scrutiny, as feedstock of alarmism from overseas newspapers and such climate experts as Past PM Helen Clark.  But her late 2018 NZ Herald article did strike me as indicative that her actions should also have been under scrutiny during her term in office.

Finding such a  cloud of obfuscation  is “meat and veg.” to any true fraud investigator, this is the sort of stuff that points directly to a false narrative which is collapsing, as the lies become less and less credible to a greater proportion of those singled out to be its victims.

I believe I know what has caused the modern warming.  I believe I know what is going to cause the imminent period of cooling.   Sadly for whatever your political intentions may be, the feared cooling is already starting in the Northern hemisphere and were it not for the UN IPCC’s  PR machine, everyone would already know about the threat this cooling poses to global food supplies – all too soon. Perhaps that will change, but there are signs that earth’s Thermosphere is thinning and cooling, so if that worries the people at NASA and NOAA, it should concern you too.   If you actually do know this stuff, then throwing young school children into the front lines of your struggle looks more like an act of desperation and cowardice on your part … the last throw of the dice to deflect allegations of your government’s complicity in an international power play to assert UN control against the primacy of national sovereignty.

If you aspirations were honest, you would have asked the population to vote on whether they want our government to be dominated by the UN.  Instead you choose to prostitute climate science as if it were a global emergency that only the UN could fix.

But whether it is warming or cooling, the changes to earth’s climate are only resulting from natural causes.  If the truth does interest you, may I suggest you have your staff analyse and monitor the web site – www.spaceweather.com.  Even NOAA, an organisation closely enmeshed in the UN IPCC web of influence, acknowledges that it is the space weather that drives earth’s climate.  When you understand how that happens, you may understand why your political actions have been so egregious.

Your cohorts at the UN IPCC upped the ante last week, with their well-orchestrated disinformation.  Seemingly expecting those among us who have actually taken the time to check the science, to retreat under the onslaught of a hysterical teenager and her handlers’ fantasies – ably augmented by the catastrophic alarmism delivered by the usual UN IPCC suspects – yet with attribution to no-one of substance and only peer-reviewed by “partners in crime”.  This short video below captures the sequence including the obvious motivation, the lies and the truth, in one elegant 12 minute splurge…

https://youtu.be/cEs31hNMebg

The international resistance to your global and national scam has begun, and something approaching 50% of New Zealanders will already know or suspect the UN IPCC version of the truth is flawed, because many remember their tirade of concatenated alarmist scares have all failed to materialise.  Most people are now too scared to confess their appreciation of the truth in case you label their words as “Hate Speech”.   Yes, I too have a list of those UN IPCC linked alarmist lies that date back to 1989 when the UN IPCC first started.  But also beyond that to when the same “new World Order” posers were trying to set up a coming ice age as the platform for a UN global takeover…

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

Nowadays, many celebrities squander their good names and reputations to underwrite the fraud.  To what end?  They, and even Sir David Attenborough cannot possibly know the scientific facts, even though  they talk of the “settled science” with such authority.  That is, unless they too are implicated in the dastardly criminality. 

For Joseph Stalin, the use of children and adults who went along with him but were never really aware of what he was doing, led Stalin to coin the term “Useful Idiots”.  Are our MPs, as well as our own children and grandchildren to be treated as those too? 

I know you believe that because you are “saving the planet” you can alienate us all from the basic truths of science in the same fashion as Chairman Mao used the “Cultural revolution” for.  But that seldom works for long.  All you need to do is to provide us sceptics with empirical evidence which proves that changes in atmospheric CO2 cause climate change.  We will melt into the night if you do that.  But I know you cannot do that, because I am able to prove why CO2 – at its molecular level – cannot have any measurable effect on climate, compared say to clouds and water vapour.  The sceptics can never be met in a public debate for one reason, the UN IPCC is now unable to defend the indefensible.  If you feel lucky, try to prove me wrong.

So 30 years after the fraud was dreamed up, there is still no evidence that CO2 does what the UN IPCC says it does, and yet you are prepared to near-bankrupt this country because you conveniently claim you are only taking someone else’s lies on faith?  What sort of Prime Minister would someone be, if they did that?  For Minister of Climate Change  I envisage the title of “King Canute” will be used by the mob when it turns on him, once the true science is generally known.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

I believe it is contrary to your fiduciary duty of care as PM to stir up fear among workers, farmers, parents and children alike, and for you to preside over an education system that teaches fake science.  Science is not a popularity contest, it is about facts.  Please also find below  a list that chronicles the truth about alarmist falsehoods, to set our children’s minds at ease. 

(Source of the following is Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 26 September 2019)

“·         You have never been less likely to die of a climate-related disaster. Your risk of being killed has fallen 99 per cent in the past century. Source: International Disaster Database.

·         You have never been more likely to live longer. Life expectancy around the world has risen by 5.5 years so far this century. Source: World Health Organisation.

·         We are getting fewer cyclones, not more. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeBureau of Meteorology.

·         There is more food than ever. Grain crops have set new records. Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation.

·         The world is getting greener. Leaf cover is growing 3 per cent per decade. Source: NASA.

·         Low-lying Pacific islands are not drowning. In fact, 43 per cent – including Tuvalu – are growing, and another 43 per cent are stable. Source: Professor Paul Kench, University of Auckland.

·         Cold weather is 20 times more likely to kill you than hot weather. Source: Lancet, 20/5/2015

·         Global warming does not cause drought. Source: Prof. Andy Pitman, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

·         Australia’s rainfall over the past century has actually increased. Source: Bureau of Meteorology.

·         There are fewer wildfires. Around the world, the area burned by fire is down 24 per cent over 18 years. Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center et al.

·         Polar bear numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Source: Dr Susan Crockford.

Perhaps it is time for you to come clean.    But you must now defend your crime against the New Zealand people in your Parliament  or prove me wrong with the substance of my complaints to the SFO and ComCom.

I would be happy to be able to apologise to you and Minister Shaw, because I know from history that warmth is good… and that cold is very bad for humanity.

The next move is over to you and your parliamentary colleagues.

I hope you place some weight on the truth and avoid the urge to attack the messenger.  After all, I am only saying what many thousands of Kiwis would like to be saying to you.

Stop telling blatant lies.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely  Concerned New Zealand Citizen asking for the lies to stop.

=====================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 28 July 2019 9:06 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘Simeon Brown’; ‘peter.goodfellow@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘letters@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘letters@press.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’
Subject: Time for the truth about the “Great Global Warming Hoax” to get a public hearing?

Dear Minister,

It is now a year since I explained to you and PM Ardern about your fraud, and explained the reasons why you should cease and desist.    I have summarised the position outlined in this email in a single page as per the last (Word) document attached above for circulation to the news media.  This lengthy email that follows, substantiates my short statement on such an extremely complicated topic.

My reason for writing this email to you is to ensure that you have the facts at your fingertips to avoid New Zealand becoming further embroiled in the “Great Global Warming” fraud, which is nothing more nor less than a globalist conspiracy orchestrated under the auspices of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”).  But then, I suspect you already know this.  The fact the conspiracy is global does not in any way excuse your conduct.  By your actions, you and your government are already complicit, and you can no longer rely on the UN IPCC.

The “Great Global Warming” fraud now has an eerie similarity to the “South Sea Bubble” in the following respects…

  1. They were each the largest frauds in recorded history at the time they occurred and then, by the time they were revealed, caused great heart-break.
  2. Both frauds relied on the remoteness of the populace from the facts on the ground.  With the South Sea Bubble, it was geographical remoteness.  With the Great Global Warming fraud it is the scientific remoteness mixed with complexity of the fraud and the interwoven, related conspiracy at the United Nations (“UN”), as they attempt to hype a global emergency to justify their takeover of global government…all in the shaddows.
  3. In both cases the perpetrators have had an incomplete understanding of the true facts that made, or now makes discovery inevitable.

In fairness to those at the centre of the Great Global Warming fraud (whether they and you deserve fairness or not), they/you did not initially have access to all the data.  Furthermore, the very few complicit scientists involved at the outset in 1988 then fell under the sway of politicians progressively including such as (in sequence) John Holdren, Al Gore, Helen Clark, Barrack Obama and even David Attenborough  – all should have known better, with different degrees of ignorance or motivation, as they lent their reputations and legacies to this fraud in order to profit from it – either in terms of political power, or for financial benefit, or for both. 

This shambles evokes the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned upon his retirement as US President, against the use of political sponsorship for the scientific community who are then funded to distort science for political purposes (as first happened with the Trofim Lysenko fiasco in 20th Century Russia).  What is unusual about your fraud is that it is supported by globalist businessmen and financiers as well as a significant element of the climate science community.

Retired Professor Nils Axel Moerner of Sweden calls it what it is.  I found his frustration with the lies contained in the link below rather like my own. I can now, at last, easily prove that he is right in almost every respect….

https://youtu.be/W1PS9-oOfRw

The Professor is as unaware (as you seem to be) that this fraud is about to be unmasked for public distaste by the speed at which the latest Grand Solar Minimum is advancing.  While outfits like NASA and NOAA still tend to downplay the implications of the new and disastrously weak 11-year solar cycle number 25, their web sites contain the evidence that it is happening as I write this.  Disillusionment day for your public will likely be sometime in early 2020.

So far this year there have only been 11 sunspots.  The public can watch this looming solar minimum threat on a daily basis at www.spaceweather.com  if they have the time and inclination.

NASA suggests that the number of sun spots in sc25 will drop to 111, which is an extremely low level of solar activity.  However, the Russian and British scientists claim they will not exceed 50!  The first is on the level of the Dalton Minimum.  The second is the level of the Maunder Minimum.  Either will prove disastrous to global agriculture and destroy your fraud as well.

It is now proven that the “modern warm period” has nothing to do with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (which we humans do give a boost to), but has been solely caused by a huge spike in solar activity…the greatest for 4,000 years. 

As a result of scientific progress, we are now in a position to prove that what you are doing with the NZ zero carbon legislation is a fraudulent enterprise.  It must now be stopped by either your free will, or by court injunction.

  1. The vilification of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) as a pollutant is just one of many essential limbs of this fraud

CO2 is essential for all life on earth.  That is a scientific fact.  All plant life relies on CO2 for the process of converting light into the plant sugars that support all other terrestrial life on earth (animals, humans etc)  and, should the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drop below 150ppm, every complex carbon based life form on this planet will likely become extinct.  Plants actually do better when they are given access to a concentration that is between 1,000 and 2,000ppm.  The current concentration is only 415ppm.  This atmospheric deficit is routinely compensated for by farmers injecting bottled CO2 gas into their greenhouses.

Meantime you elect to wage war on CO2 and label it as “undesirable pollution” for UN IPCC’s own devious ends.  They are of course conflicted, yet conceal their conflict of interest from the masses.

The evidence that shows increased concentrations of CO2 leads to the greening of the planet is contained in successive NASA satellite photos that are readily available to you and your advisers.  This greening has occurred primarily because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm at the end of “The Little Ice Age” in 1850, to the current level of more than 400ppm as of today.  If you were a true green you would find that good, not bad.

Plant growth experiments at various CO2 levels have also proven this fact as contained in the first “Word” attachment at the head of this email.  This attachment shows the practical limitations of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” that were the reasons why it’s possible impact on climate change was trialled and rejected by such eminent scientists as Professors Niels Bohr and Anders Angstrom some 100 years ago.  Those reasons – discovered by actual experiments rather than by totally subjective theoretical modelling – haven’t changed.  The only thing that changed was the arrival of the UN IPCC in 1989 and some biddable scientists who wanted to establish their new field of knowledge and scorned the older inter-linked evidence based earth sciences.

We humans can tolerate an atmospheric CO2 level up to at least 100 times greater than it is at present.  Should you personally ever take ill and collapse, requiring CPR,  any trained person could probably resuscitate you by “rescue breathing” with air containing 40,000ppm of CO2 and a reduced concentration of oxygen (of only about 16% of the air mixture). That is because we all breathe in anywhere between about 400ppm and 800ppm of CO2  and breathe out roughly 4% or 40,000ppm – thereby reducing the amount of oxygen that was inhaled by 20%.

The scientific record has shown that before the beginning of the Quaternary Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were considerably higher than today and the relentless sequence of natural sequestration of CO2 in rocks, soil and sea bed occurring during colder times over the last 500 million years considerably reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere and will almost inevitably mean for the future, that by the end of the next 90,000 year terrestrial ice age of the current Pleistocene era (or subsequent repeats of that cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could even fall back to, or fall further from the 180ppm at the end of the last ice age (12,000 years ago), to a much lower level and possibly even reach or breech the extinction threshold of 150ppm at some point. 

So there is considerable hard evidence that human CO2 emissions which involve using and emitting sequestered carbon will actually help to restore a desirable atmospheric balance that is more suitable for all natural life on earth.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!  Unless you can prove that increased atmospheric CO2 has a significant effect on climate change, you should regard your criticism of this naturally occurring gas as a grave error, that is contrary to the best ideals of the green movement.

What needs to be dealt with, is to clean up real pollution rather than attempting to levy extortionate taxes based on deliberate lies.

  • In 30 years there has never been any empirical evidence that variations in atmospheric CO2 cause any measurable change in earth’s climate. 

Sure, we humans warm our surroundings by using many heat sources and fuels that provide us with comfort and wealth, but the claim that we alter the future climate is quite extraordinary …. and extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary proof.   Such proof has never been found – despite the wasting of billions of dollars on the ever more complex computer models.  Sadly for the theories you espouse, there is ample proof that human and indeed total CO2 emissions have no measurable impact on climate and I itemise that proof below…

  • The historical record from the empirical analysis of ice core samples taken from the depths of the Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok, and from Greenland has provided clear evidence that as earth’s temperature changes, the level of atmospheric CO2 then also changes after a delay of several hundred years.  When temperatures rise, a rise in CO2 levels follows; then when temperatures fall,  CO2 levels also fall.  This is not only well accepted data, but the result is logical.  The sun which supplies  more than 99% of earth’s energy, heats the ocean more slowly than either the land or the atmosphere and the ocean releases its heat far more slowly.  Water absorbs atmospheric CO2 when cold and releases it when the water is warmed.  The ocean contains 50+ times the CO2 of the atmosphere, so when the ocean is warming it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than it takes up; and when cooling it takes up more CO2 than it releases.  The data underpins the Vostok evidence.
  • During the last 100 years there has been clear evidence that the level of atmospheric CO2 has increased from around 300ppm to over 400ppm, and at no stage have the recordings at the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA’s)testing site in Hawaii (which both UN IPCC and sceptics accept as valid data) have ever fallen.  Yet during the time from 1918 to 1940 the climate warmed, and then from 1945 to 1975 the climate cooled, and then from 1975 to 1998 the climate warmed again.  From 1999 to 2015 the temperature did not increase by any measurable amount.  Then in 2016 there was a spurt in warming due to the strong El Nino conditions, and then after that the temperature has fallen again – to the present.  This shows that CO2 has had no appreciable effect, unless one changes the starting and finishing times used for the temperature comparison to manipulate the meaning of the data.  In general, the world has emerged from the effects of “The Little Ice Age” and the solar cycles became appreciably more active – with the Total Solar Insolation (“TSI”) during the modern warm period higher than it has been for thousands of years.  It is the sun that has caused the modern warming.   There is no upturn in the number and severity of serious weather events and on the contrary there has even been a significant reduction in severe weather events since the late 1930’s.  You wouldn’t know that to listen to the media.

2.3 The impact of the huge increase in solar activity underpins this evidence and accounts for the warming of the ocean and its current slow expansion.

  • The reasons why human CO2 emissions cannot drive earth’s climate are now well known.

3.1  It is generally accepted by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions comprise only 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  Yet the presumption is made by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions drive 98% of climate change with no allowance for the variability over the 95.7% of natural CO2 emission effects.  For example a warming sea alone will emit more CO2 than humans can influence from all activities.  But to make their models work, the UN IPCC modellers even invent separate classes of CO2 molecules.  First, they state that human influenced CO2 molecules do not dissipate, but instead  only increase the level of residual atmospheric CO2.   Second, they say only the CO2 emissions from natural causes do dissipate due to the requirements of vegetation etc.  Of course this is junk science because there is no difference in the molecules, so any lay person can see through that.  But whether we allow the UN IPCC to clutch at straws to support their UN sponsored fraud or not, we humans cannot affect climate change.  Could King Canute turn back the tide?

      3.2  Atmospheric CO2 molecules do not impact with more than an extremely narrow band-width of infra-red re-radiation emanating from earth’s surface/sea and even then, not fully.  Water vapour on the other hand impacts twelve times the band width that CO2 does, and of that scope, for much of it, water vapour fully affects the re-radiation in some of the applicable band widths (As per the first attached (Word) document at the head of this email).  The water vapour also has other effects because of its involvement in the cloud cover and with its ability to phase change between liquid, gas and solid with massive localised thermal effects that the UN IPCC modellers deliberately ignore.  Not only that but water vapour is between 10 to 100 times as voluminous as CO2, depending on temperature and humidity. The suggestions that human CO2 emissions cause climate change is therefore somewhere between risible and ridiculous.

  • The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was already almost thermally saturated at the pre-industrial level of 280ppm (The Beer-Lambert Law refers). This is because an increase in CO2 concentration only leads to a logarithmic increase in the absorption of heat.  After the pre-industrial level of CO2 ( i.e. at 280ppm), its thermal impact for extra atmospheric concentrations of each – say – 100ppm of extra atmospheric CO2 is almost un-measurably minute and similarly, any reduction in temperature change from a reduction in the CO2 level would need to involve a huge reduction of – say 100ppm, if it is to have any measurable effect (even in theory).   As a result, the UN IPCC desire to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby effect a reduction in earth’s temperature is a pipe-dream and is misleading people who are being told that with the expenditure of trillions of dollars over time it can be done.  That change is not within human power because… i. Humans influence only a tiny portion of CO2 emissions and, ii. Because natural causes of CO2 emissions are far greater, so a relatively small variation in natural emissions will overpower any influence from human influenced CO2 emissions, and iii. While CO2 may be a greenhouse gas it is a significantly weaker one, than either water vapour which is measured and clouds which are not, and these factors dominate as shown in Dr Holmes’ video at the link in item 4.1 below.  But meantime a Finnish study has concluded that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years has only resulted in a temperature increase of 0.1 degrees C. and of this the human proportion is only 0.01 degrees C. as noted in this link :
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

3.4  Water vapour and clouds provide the principle “greenhouse effect” that keeps earth warmer than outer space.  (But please note, the term “greenhouse” is a gross oversimplification which is mainly used to suit the UN IPCC narrative, because there is no restrictive membrane in earth’s atmosphere – like the glass of a greenhouse.  The true effect of cloud cover is more complicated because clouds’ net effect is one of competing forces of insulation between the partial  shielding of the sun’s rays which (along with water vapour, and other atmospheric compounds) only allows 56% of Total Solar Insolation to descend to the earth’s surface, and the low level cloud and water vapour which inhibits the infra red re-radiation of heat leaving earth’s surface and reaching the extreme cold of space). The attached paper by Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Duffy, dated July 2019, shows “why it is not possible for any of the non-condensable greenhouse gases to have an appreciable effect on weather and climate change”.  It is attached herewith as the second (Adobe) article at the head of this email. 

  • It is now generally accepted that Space Weather determines the weather on earth.  While the UN IPCC chooses to believe that Total Solar Irradiance (“TSI”) only varies by 0.05 watts per square metre – up or down, that is based on their purposefully short term comparison of TSI changes and is demonstrably both biased in their favour and incorrect in fact, as has already been published in a number of peer-reviewed studies (again, see the link at item 4.1 below).  But not only is the TSI variation far greater than the figures shown in the UN IPCC computer models, but also the variations in solar activity (and numbers of sun spots) change the amount of solar wind affecting the planets in the solar system including planet earth.  The stronger the solar wind, the less the number of the galactic cosmic rays that can enter either the solar system or the earth’s atmosphere.  During the regular 11 year solar minimums the influx of galactic cosmic rays increases and during events called “Grand Solar Minimums”  the influx of cosmic rays is even more dramatically increased. 

Cosmic rays not only threaten astronauts and high altitude air crews (as they will do for the next two years) but they act to nucleate water vapour to form low level clouds and these provide an increased cooling effect for the earth as well as initiating massive anomalous rain, hail and even snow events.  In 1997 the work of Danish Professor Hendrik Svensmark and his son led to this being promulgated as a substantial theory – but now it has been convincingly proven with successful experiments in the “Cloud” project at CERN.  Unlike Anthropogenic Global Warming which has been disproven, the Svensmark theory about cosmic ray impacts on cloud formation is now, if not settled science (as the UN IPCC fraudsters will never accept the truth) but it is repeatable by scientific experimentation.  Who could ask for more proof?

3.6  There are now numerous studies of climate change that cast doubt on the validity of all of the UN IPCC sponsored computer models, showing all to grossly overstate possible warming.  But each model has a theoretical basis that relies totally on human generated parameters (for which complexity the humans involved receive multiple billions of dollars each year), so the UN IPCC studies cannot be relied upon for one good reason…the actual climate conditions have to date borne no relationship whatsoever to the forecasts of 101 of the 102 computer modelled predictions, or of the 72 models that are currently in vogue and used as the basis for creating deliberate warming alarmism.  They may as well have licked their finger and held it up to the air and taken a guess…because both that guess and the computer models are equally subjective.

3.7  By February 2020 we will see whether the Northern Hemisphere is to suffer massive food shortages as a direct result of the extraordinary cold and wet weather that has been interspersed with drought conditions there over winter of 2018/9 and spring of 2019.  Northern spring planting has been extensively disrupted as a result Grand Solar Minimum conditions and unless there is an “Indian summer” to delay Autumn, their harvest will likely be dire.  While Minister, you have thus far ignored my well-intentioned warnings that you are now becoming at least an accessory to fraud (for over a year), you must try to understand that New Zealand, by your actions is probably becoming exposed to the impacts that will occur on a global basis as a direct result of the presently unfolding Grand Solar Minimum.  You have been warned of this material and demonstrably cyclical hazard.  Now time is of the essence. Watch what is happening to cereal futures prices if you don’t believe me.

  •  How big is your fraud? (the total cost of this fraud globally is estimated at USD1.5 trillion per year and is growing exponentially larger and more onerous for the countries of the OECD)

4.1 The hallmark of a fraud is often denoted by the subsidiary lies that need to be told to lend credence to the central falsehood.

Everything from forest fires… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phw8OlN_x1E&feature=youtu.be

to sea level rise is subject to alarmism…(see for sea level the Professor Moerner link above in the preamble to this email report).

Also for ocean acidification… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJjBo5ICMc&feature=youtu.be

Editor’s note: the following paragraphs from the Australian IPC are not in the email to the NZ Prime Minister, and have been added to clarify further details of the ongoing issue and court case. Professor Ridd’s key point is that James Cook University scientists have published many reports that do not comply with the proper scientific methodologies and, as such, are not valid. Eg the results cannot be replicated and the data has not been made available. Yet these reports have been published ‘as gospel’ by many mainstream media, leading to, amongst other things people world-wide believing the Great Barrier Reef is ‘dead’ or at least dying, and no longer travelling to see the reef, causing, amongst other issues, a major downturn in the tourist industry.

As reported by the Australian IPC: ‘Professor Peter Ridd has won his litigation against James Cook University about the Great Barrier Reef, the big scandal for North Queensland is the alleged death of coral that is being deliberately used to create an over-hyped sense of climate emergency.  There is nothing wrong with the world’s coral reefs, other than periodic bleaching  occurrences that they often quickly recover from.  This is a cyclic phenomenon.

In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef. ‘There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.’

Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.

In April, Federal Court Justice Vasta ruled JCU had erred in its interpretation of a clause in its enterprise agreement and deprived Dr Ridd of his right to express his academic opinion. Within hours of the judgment being released in April, JCU published a statement on its website criticising the ruling.

Dr Ridd is seeking financial compensation after he was sacked by JCU for publicly criticising the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef.

In his decision, Judge Vasta stated that:

[T]he concept of intellectual freedom is not recent and is extremely important as it helps to define the mission of any university… It is the cornerstone upon which the University exists. If the cornerstone is removed, the building tumbles.

[…] To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

[…] That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.’

We continue to see story after story that hypes the warm temperatures and ignores the cold weather.  Heat waves?  Hype and hoopla.  The sceptics are calling out every one of the lies now, just as quickly as the mainstream media prints them…

https://youtu.be/f5B8gcpggfs

This is only because the media is being manipulated by political forces aligned to the (your?) international socialist movement.  The fake news propaganda effort is being coordinated by the UN IPCC and their supporters.  We can no longer get accurate media reporting on how weather compares, or about climate change, nor on the other sub-plots.  Like this one about Arctic Sea Ice because the fraud dominates… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwUhJaQVi-M&feature=youtu.be  and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZDtnq9A-Bg&feature=youtu.be

Even the fate of polar bears is being twisted to suit the UN agenda… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0&feature=youtu.be

In mid July (only last week and during mid-summer!) the “Crown Prince Haakon” a Norwegian icebreaker set out to crash through from Svalbard to the North Pole based on the stories of rapid ice melt.  They quickly turned back due to striking solid 10 ft thick ice.  Even with Greenland’s and Iceland’s principle glaciers now advancing we still get stories that they are retreating.  This level of scientific disinformation may suit your purposes but if this Grand Solar Minimum (2019-2055) is to be a 400 year event like the Maunder Minimum – rather than 200 year event like the Dalton minimum – then this will end in tears because it will soon be too late for us to prepare.

4.2 The establishment of carbon trading schemes relies totally on the ability of the UN IPCC scientists to predict what happens in the future as CO2 levels are notionally to be brought under control by exerting the influence of humans over natural forces to reduce both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. That relies totally on the accuracy of trumped up, totally inaccurate, but extremely expensive computer models. In this rush to implement a false doctrine, the developed countries have joined a collective rush that will destroy their economic base.  If you sit down with your scientists and watch these two videos by Dr Robert Holmes and Dr Patrick Moore you will get a sense of the gravity of what your government’s involvement in this fraud is doing to all except those in the developing world who (are already and) will happily continue to eat our lunch in every possible way.

4.3  Herewith is the video of a comprehensive rebuttal of the science that your globalist friends rely upon (by Dr Robert Holmes).  Each video Dr Holmes has put out gradually tightens the knot around the Great Global Warming fraud as he itemises the genuine peer reviewed experiments and research that gives the lie to the UN IPCC dogma that is essential for their survival.  This latest in his series contains most of the evidence that will blow this fraud apart.

4.4  You claim to be a devout environmentalist, yet I allege you are betraying the environmental movement and misleading the general public.  Accordingly I have laid a separate complaint about the deceptive and misleading conduct of both  you as Leader, and the NZ Green Party, with the Commerce Commission under s. 13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.  You cannot take destructive action against all earth’s/New Zealand’s  vegetative species and still lay claim to being “green”.  Here is Dr Patrick Moore’s video on the destructive actions of others also participating in this fraud.  I make no apology for its length which enables you to better understand his credentials and the similar conundrum they face in Canada to the trouble you are stirring up in New Zealand.   As with Greenpeace, Canada, it is all counter-productive.

https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4

At this point in time there are between 10-15,000 scientists working in every OECD country to combat the Great Global Warming Fraud.  But essentially, when the global harvests begin to fail (as they did last year – if only in some regions), it will be too late for us to prepare.

  • The preoccupation of the UN IPCC with their fraud is because it is an existential requirement for that organisation, as noted by Dr Moore’s video at 29 minutes and 44 seconds…I quote from the UN IPCC’s mandate to analyse… “a change in climate that is attributed to directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”  The facts however tell us a different story as per the link below…even using UN IPCC approved data…the knowledge of what happened once the ice cores from Antarctica were analysed in 2003, busted their theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and since then the UN simply ratcheted up their fraudulent activities to increase their hold on power over national governments.  This Vostok ice core data is also confirmed by Greenland studies of the Holocene climate history, covering only the last 11,500 years…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=higXpFF79Hw&feature=youtu.be

4.6  I cannot open a newspaper without some element of the fraud being telegraphed as proven science.  Whether it is as a result of the studied ignorance of journalists or because children have believed the lies that you and their teachers have told them as part of their school curriculum.  Those elements of the mainstream media that spread the lies and disinformation must be stopped forthwith.  The sceptics know the role that George Soros and others have played in this fraud.  Local Government, Maori interests, Central Government officers, farmers, oil companies business leaders and others have all been misled and become unwitting accomplices.  But of greater cost to the country is the rubbish that carbon trading will lead to some form of beneficial climate modification.  This activity and many others are by definition only Ponzi schemes.  Their life and existence depends on “greater fools” making bigger and bigger financial contributions to the point when the fraud is discovered and a massive “debt jubilee” automatically takes place, to the cost of everyone who has obeyed your erroneous interpretation of junk science and obeyed your corrupt laws.   There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be exposed.  But the longer it takes, the worse the situation will be.

  • The cost of your policies will be too steep for the country of New Zealand to bear, as it has already been in Germany and Australia.  As the proven cost of the UN IPCC’s wasteful programme becomes known, the global resistance is getting stronger now that the truth is getting out. 

This is a sample of something doing the rounds in Australia…. https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

Minister, you have a duty to familiarise yourself with the science.   Although I am not associated with it, I believe the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s experts can provide you with directions of where to get help and support.

I believe from the data that the earth’s climate is always changing, either up or down, and because I now see a bias in favour of the solar and space weather scientists’ consensus – who mostly believe the climate will now cool – I am classed as a “Climate Change Denier”.  Those who believe in human instigated global warming and insist that the term “climate change” is the same as “global warming” are hyping runaway warming for all they are worth and yet their un-warranted alarmism is based solely on computer models that only do one thing – they reinforce their own personal world view.  After 30 years, because their models don’t agree with the data, they simply change the data to suit their models.  Are you really happy to go along with that? 

The Russians used to have a saying,  “The most difficult thing to predict is history”.  (It is like Tiananmen Square and the CCP) Try to track the unwarranted and self-serving alterations to temperature data and you will understand why I, like Professor Moerner of Sweden think the UN IPCC are such frauds.  If you do check this information for yourself you will find yourself sitting on the wrong side of the biggest fraud in global history.  I hope you will feel comfortable there, until the truth does out.

I am simply an investor in renewable energy projects moonlighting as a fraud investigator, calling the facts as I see them.  I don’t like what I see, but unlike you, I face them.  Don’t we, the people, pay you to do the same?

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely Concerned New Zealand Citizen

============================================

CLIMATE  CHANGE

By Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

CARBON DIOXIDE COand WATER H2 CONTRASTED       

  • Showing water and condensable water vapour have by nature much greater actions on weather changes and climate patterns than non-condensable CO2 ever could.
  • SOLAR RADIATION:  CO2 only has TWO narrow absorption bands for incoming solar energy.  Water vapour has SEVEN (5 larger bands).  Water vapour is 5 times more effective with incoming Solar radiation.
  • RADIATION from EARTH:  CO2 only has TWO more narrow absorption bands for radiation coming back from earth.  Water vapour covers 85% of the entire span. Water vapour is more than 12 times effective than CO2.
  • Overall, water vapour is about 12 times more effective than non-condensable CO2 with respect to all radiation
  • Condensable water vapour evaporates, humidifies, then condenses to form clouds, which can precipitate to produce rain or snow, and scrub dust and pollutants from the air, and then cool the atmosphere and planet surface. 

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2

  • CO2 is NOT a pollutant or a toxin [Carbon MONOXIDE CO is the toxin: prevents blood from carrying oxygen]
  • CO2 in the atmosphere is vital for LIFE – plants and vegetation: we would die without it !
  • Crops, trees, plants, convert CO2 into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables, and more
  • Leaf ‘factories’ convert CO2 into organic carbon compounds and O2
  • Marine plankton and molluscs uptake and convert CO2 too!
  • Humans exhale 1 kg CO2 per day (close to 7 Billion humans on Earth) and the concentration is 40,000 ppm at the exit of the mouth
  • NOT all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made (< 5%) – most is naturally produced
  • Ruminating animals put out more greenhouse gases than all the cars, buses, trucks and other vehicles in the world
  • The main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are Fossil Fuels: coal, oil, gas, and the burning of crops and waste, wood, trees and other wastes and garbage (still very small worldwide)
  • CO2 absorbs radiant energy over a total of 4 LIMITED NARROW BANDS [see Graph below],
  • Atmospheric CO2 is a non-condensable GAS like nitrogen, oxygen, and methane. Water vapour is the ONLY condensable gas. These changes of phase (evaporation, condensation, precipitation) produce all the atmospheric effects: heat-shielding clouds, cooling, and atmospheric scrubbing
  • For every 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere, only 10,410 in NZ are greenhouse gas GHG molecules. But 10,000 of the 10,410 are water molecules.  Of the remaining 410, ONLY about 405 are CO2.  Of these, only 5% (about 20 molecules) are from man-made processes (20 in 1 million; 0.002%; 1 molecule in 50,000!!  Can that be the main culprit in climate change when water is typically about 1% in New Zealand; or 1 molecule in 100, while absorbing far more radiant energy as the graph below shows
  • The ocean holds 93% of ALL CO2 (38,000 billion tonnes); the land 5% (2,000 billion tonnes); the atmosphere 2% (850 billion tonnes), of which anthropogenic CO2 is ONLY 5% of that (about 45 billion tonnes)
  • CO2 in rain water is acidic: CO2 in sea water is alkaline (pH 8.1), and can never-ever be acidic while shells, carbonates and molluscs exist to neutralise it. It can become less alkaline but not acidic
  • CO2 is commonly injected into greenhouse to increase plant growth rates and crop yields
  • It has been reported that there has been a 20 – 40% greening of the planet over the last several decades
  • China has 1,171 coal-fired plants planned; India 446; so coal is still in strong demand
  • Examining atmospheric CO2 must always be considered simultaneously with the many larger effects of H2O.

Increasing CO2 concentration increases crop yields as shown in this actual Greenhouse experiment!

WATER VAPOUR H2O

Water is UNIQUE and quite different from CO2:

  • WATER: The most abundant compound on the planet and a universal solvent.  Water makes up over 60% of the human body.  It is in all plants, animals, cells etc ..
  • WATER VAPOUR:  Is the ONLY condensable atmospheric gas. So only H2O can evaporate, humidify, condense (clouds), and precipitate (rain, hail, and snow). 
  • WATER: H2O is the ONLY fluid that FLOATS ON ITSELF when it FREEZES on the liquid surface.  [If it did not float it would sink and crush the creatures (fish, sharks, whales) in the Oceans.  Marine life flourishes in water below the floating ice].
  • WATER VAPOUR: Has the largest percentage greenhouse gas EFFECT [about 45% – 70% (clear sky), 70% – 90% (cloudy sky)]
  • WATER VAPOUR:  The water vapour concentration in the atmosphere depends on temperature and location [< 0.2% in very cold climates to >4% by mass at high Humidity in the tropics >35 0C]
  • WATER:  Oceans absorb 1,000 times more heat energy than the atmosphere, and BUFFERS more than 80% of the large heat fluctuations (and hence temperature variations), thereby moderating weather changes and climate patterns greatly.  This key factor is missed when only isolating radiation-only and CO2.  93% of all CO2 is in the oceans (~38,000 billion tonnes)
  • WATER:  Liquid water has the highest surface tension (surface molecular skin) of all natural liquids. It controls water droplet formation, cloud structures, ocean surfaces, waves, evaporation rates, etc
  • WATER: H2O molecules are polar (H slightly +ve; O slightly –ve). Hence adjacent water molecules can ‘attract’ each other, particularly as the temperature is lowered (ice floats on water because of this). [Liquid water can also ionise slightly H3O+ hydronium ions, and OH hydroxyl ions]. Hydrogen onding gives some unique features unlike CO2: H2O has the second highest specific heat capacity [only ammonia* is greater]: H2O has a very high heat of vaporisation (2,257 kJ/kg at its boiling point), and ENERGY TRANSFERS are very important in atmospheric changes (weather) (shows up as temperature differences)
  • WATER:  The ‘Structure’ and ‘Behaviour’ of H2O molecules have LARGE buffering effects that moderate the earth’s weather and they affect both evaporation from the seas and condensation in cloud formation. Non-condensable COgas forms NO clouds
  • WATER: The specific enthalpy of fusion (at freezing) is very high (333.6 kJ/kg at 0°C) [only ammonia* is higher], and this confers resistance to melting on the ice. [Density decrease or Bulk increase at freezing is about 9%] 
  • WATER: Water Vapour – Liquid Water – Ice COEXIST at the equilibrium Triple Point.  It is amazing that it occurs near 00C (By comparison, the Triple Point of CO2 is -56.50C so it strongly differs from water).  This has some unique effects in phase transitions near the poles (eg solid ice can go to vapour DIRECTLY with no liquid water for example [sublimation]) (dry ice CO2 used widely on stage and TV)). 
  • WATER: Water has a freezing point of 00C and a boiling point of 1000C due to its unique molecular polar structure.  We live because of that!! 
  • WATER: The nearest molecule to Water (Atomic Weight of 18) is Ammonia (Atomic Weight of 17).   In direct contrast, the freezing point of Ammonia is -770C and a boiling point of -330C even though the Atomic Weights are 1 point different.  This shows that the structure of water is unique!  Just as well, water is THE MOST ABUNDANT COMPOUND on the EARTH’S SURFACE and the temperature absorption-emission bands are just right for life on Earth.
  • The Thermal Lapse Rate or temperature drop is the 6.5C0 temperature drop per kilometer rise above earth.  This is caused by all atmospheric gas molecules moving further with increasing elevation (lower density and lower pressure result). This is vital for humidification, mists, fogs and cloud formation
  • WATER VAPOUR: can regulate, buffer, compensate, correct, and restore atmospheric changes

Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

EMAIL:  geoffduffy@lycos.com

The KEY REFERENCE sources:

            Radiation:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

            Humidity:   http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/humidity/relative-humidity.htm

====================================

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD – SUMMARY

By John Rofe, 28 July 2019

  1. After 30 years of repeated warnings of impending Armageddon from the United Nations (“UN”) based on the subjective and inaccurate computer modelling performed at the cost of national governments (and all taxpayers) at the UN’s behest, they are certainly no closer to understanding the climate.  But they are instead still trying to defend their 30-year fraud.
  2. Meantime, credible solar scientists have good evidence that the principle cause of climate change lies with the variability of the solar cycles that have continued to affect earth’s climate since the beginning of time.  UN bias ignores this evidence.  Even so, there are some longer cycles that affect the passage of ice ages and inter-glacial periods, and are caused by earth’s movements in relation to the sun.  These don’t yet figure within our time horizon.
  3. The only plausible cause of all the warming that has happened since “The Little Ice Age” ended in 1850, has come from the highest level of solar electromagnetic activity for 4,000 years.  The increase in earth’s temperature of little over 1 degree Centigrade over 160 years is latterly being called the “Modern Warm Period”. Those of us who have checked the history find it is not remarkably warm at all today, even though a lot of effort is being made to convince us that it is, with lies, damned lies and cherry-picked statistics.  The Mediaeval Warm Period was arguably much warmer – a thousand years ago. What about the 1930’s?
  4. NASA now tells us a new weaker 11 year solar cycle – called simply “sc25” – is commencing at a time when there is record thinning and cooling of earth’s outer layer of atmosphere (called “the Thermosphere”) which we are also told heralds the imminent arrival of a new 30 year event called a “Grand Solar Minimum”.  Many scientists now expect a period of much colder weather to last from 2019 to 2055 that could result in horrific global crop losses.  I guess the proof of that is about to be revealed, as early as February 2020.  We will see.
  5. The truth about carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is that they are only minor trace gases and cannot possibly influence earth’s climate.  They are proven to have no measurable effect on climate change, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas necessary for all life on earth.  Besides water and light, carbon dioxide is the only resource essential for all plant growth.  Plants really need 1000 parts per million of carbon dioxide from the air.  Yet today the atmosphere only contains about 415 parts per million.  To remedy this deficiency, horticulturalists pump bottled gas into glass houses and growing tunnels at up to 2,000 parts per million.  So carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but it is also in relatively short supply.  There is clearly no possibility of influencing climate change by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) which anyway constitute less than 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  So NZ Government actions are just part of the UN IPCC coordinated fraud.
  6. Because methane emissions have even less effect than CO2, the present demands being made on the NZ farming community are somewhere between bizarre and ridiculous.
  7. But why is your Government lying to you?  I cannot answer for them, but I can assure you that after a year of failing to get satisfactory reasons for their fraudulent behaviour, I laid allegations against Minister James Shaw and PM Jacinda Ardern with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in mid-April 2019…and later also laid a complaint with the NZ Commerce Commission against Minister James Shaw and the NZ Green Party under s.13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be revealed…for this one, let’s fix it today.

=======================

 

 

Empires: rises and falls, so now what?

The US was the dominant world power after WWII but has been failing, compounded by desperate plans for hegemony compounded by declining culture and values. Many other countries are falling under the same spell.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

The Bretton Woods Dollar System and pending collapse of the fiat US dollar

The Bretton Woods Dollar System and pending collapse of the fiat US dollar  By F William Engdahl, 7 July 2020 

 

Editor’s note:  This book by F William Engdahl explains how the US powerbrokers orchestrated the USD ascendancy and hegemony by a mixture of lies and bullying, many focused on the infamous Bretton Woods agreement in 1944. Chapter 11 provides a basis for understanding why the US dollar is rapidly collapsing, as do all fiat currencies, and possibly what will follow shortly.

Hello dear Reader,

For this letter I have decided to share with you the complete eleventh chapter of my book, The Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century. The book, one of my most detailed, traces the emergence of an international banking cabal following the US Civil War, first led by J.P. Morgan, later by the family Rockefeller. History is very concrete and my experience suggests that it is most important to detail precisely who did what to whom and why. In this selection from my book, I describe the process that created the 1944 Bretton Woods System designed by those Wall Street bankers and by their man in Washington’s US Treasury, to be the basis of a postwar informal American Empire. To comprehend what is taking place today, history is essential.

I hope you enjoy this excerpt and that you will consider buying the complete book. You will be amazed perhaps at what you learn about the true US history.

Please see the attachment for the complete chapter in .pdf-file format.

If you like the book, it would mean a lot to me if you leave a review on amazon. This helps me continue to create great content for you.

                                                                                   — F William Engdahl

Chapter Eleven:

Creating the Bretton Woods Dollar System

We, my dear Crossman, are Greeks in this American Empire. You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans—great big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are and more idle, with more unspoiled virtues but also more corrupt.

–Harold Macmillan, wartime adviser to Churchill, on the reality of the postwar Anglo-American relationship [1]

An American Dollar Standard

As war erupted in Europe in September 1939 with Hitler’s and Stalin’s dismemberment of Poland, European gold was flooding into the United States. In 1935 US official gold reserves had been valued at just over $9 billion. By 1940 after the onset of war in Europe, they had risen to $20 billion. As desperate European countries sought to finance their war effort, their gold went to the United States to purchase essential goods. By the time of the June 1944 convening of the international monetary conference at Bretton Woods, the United States controlled fully 70% of the world’s monetary gold, an impressive advantage.[2]  That 70% did not even include calculating the captured gold of the defeated Axis powers of Germany or Japan, where exact facts and data were buried in layers of deception and rumour.

By 1945 the United States Federal Reserve controlled the overwhelming share of the world’s monetary gold.

The major Wall Street financial powers intended to use their advantage to the full in creating their postwar American Century. The American dollar, under the postwar system constructed by Washington and Wall Street banks, would be the mechanism for US control of global money and credit.

Beginning as early as 1941, calculating that Hitler’s march against the Soviet Union would destroy Germany, US policy circles began laying the basis for their postwar economic hegemony.  They would be remarkably effective in maintaining that hegemony for the first two decades after the end of the war.

The centerpiece of US economic strategy for shaping its dominance of the postwar world was called the Bretton Woods Agreements — the promotion of an American-defined ‘free trade’ and of the US dollar as the sole currency of that world trade.

World War II had caused enormous destruction of infrastructure, industry and populations throughout the Eurasian landmass from the Atlantic to Vladivistock. The only major industrial power in the world to emerge intact—indeed, greatly strengthened from an economic perspective—was the United States.

As the world’s greatest industrial power, physically unscathed by the war, the United States stood to gain enormously from opening the entire world to unfettered trade. The US industrial sector would have a global market for its exports, and it would have unrestricted access to vital raw materials from countries that were former colonies of Britain, France and the other European powers. Little wonder that ‘free trade’ assumed the dimension of religious dogma in postwar Washington.

‘Free trade’ involved lowering tariffs and removing national protections that hindered the flow of goods, especially US exports, into global markets, or removed barriers to US import of cheap raw materials from former or existing European colonial territories in Africa or Asia.

As the British well understood, ‘free trade’ or a ‘level playing field’ was the rallying cry of the strongest, most advanced economies, seeking to open up less developed markets for their goods. A century earlier, in 1846 with the repeal of their Corn Laws, Britain had been in a similar position to demand that the rest of the world open its borders to a British version of ‘free trade.’ Now, in 1945, the tables had turned. Washington’s vision of free trade meant economic ruin for much of what remained of British industry.

The European economies, devastated by almost six years of war, had little choice but to agree with the US vision of postwar international economic management. Even Great Britain, which saw itself as at least an equal of the United States at the bargaining table, was forced to take a bitter lesson in humility before harsh US demands.

The final agreement for a postwar New World Order in monetary and economic affairs was reached following months of bitter infighting, especially between British and US negotiators. US negotiators, led by the Treasury’s Harry Dexter White, pushed through a system different from all previous gold standard currency exchanges that had existed before.

Under the 19th Century British Gold Standard, and even in the New York version after 1919 until the British left in 1931, each national currency was backed by a given reserve of national monetary gold. If a country suffered an imbalance in its foreign trade, in theory, it would automatically be corrected by the workings of the gold standard as the country would lose or gain gold depending on whether it had a trade deficit or surplus. Under the new rules of the Bretton Woods, Washington imposed a system where only one currency—the US dollar—would be backed by gold. All other currencies were fixed in value in relation to the dollar.

It was a coup for the United States and for the Wall Street banks behind the Bretton Woods negotiations. The dollar became the world’s reserve currency, required by all trading nations to conduct trade with one another after 1945. The US dollar, not gold, under the Bretton Woods Gold Exchange Standard, became at one and the same time a ‘world currency’ or more accurately, The world currency. Yet, as pointed out, the US Treasury also had unlimited power to create dollars, and it did so. Because its currency, the dollar, was the world reserve currency, the world was more or less forced to accept the inflated dollars. No other country enjoyed that enormous advantage.

The fateful Bretton Woods signing

The final agreement was signed by representatives of 29 nations in December 1945 at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. It was a crowning moment for the members of the Council on Foreign Relations’ War & Peace Studies project—their dream of postwar economic empire had been successfully achieved. Their institution, the International Monetary Fund, would now be able to reorganize much of the world under the sovereignty of the dollar.

American hegemony over the world financial and trading system was central to the Bretton Woods agreement. The crucial terms had already been hammered out in a series of private negotiations beginning in 1943 between Britain’s Lord Keynes, Advisor to the UK Treasury, and Harry Dexter White, US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Secretary Henry Morgenthau. [3]

The Bretton Woods talks, which began in June 1944, were intended as the first institutional component of a new postwar United Nations organization (UN) that would replace the British-dominated League of Nations. The UN, unlike the League, was to be a US-dominated agency, under a concept created by the authors of the War & Peace Studies to advance the US agenda in the postwar world.[4] The Rockefeller brothers who financed the studies even donated the land for construction of UN headquarters in Manhattan. The resulting rise in adjacent land values, as foreign diplomats descended on Manhattan, more than made up in gain for their original generosity.

One of the reasons the US version of Bretton Woods prevailed over the alternative British version argued by John Maynard Keynes for the British Government, was the simple fact that the US was the most powerful country at the table, ultimately able to impose its will on the others. At the time, a senior official at the Bank of England described Bretton Woods as, “the greatest blow to Britain next to the war.” [5] It demonstrated the dramatic shift in financial power from the UK to the USA.

The Bank of England, as well as influential Round Table members such as Leo Amery and Churchill’s old ally, Lord Beaverbrook, correctly saw the US proposal for the International Monetary Fund as a device intended to make the US dollar the primary currency of world finance and trade, a shift that would come at the expense of the vital role of the City of London as well as undermining the British Sterling Area and Imperial Preference trade links. [6]

In order to secure the desired US version of the Bretton Woods agreement, however, Washington urgently required the bloc of votes that were represented by the nations of Latin America. Here Nelson Rockefeller, Roosevelt’s wartime intelligence coordinator for Latin America, played a key role in manipulating the votes with deals using his far-reaching influence in Latin America.

Nelson buys some UN votes

The Yalta agreement signed by the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union in 1945, had stipulated that only those countries that had formally declared war on Germany could be founding members of the postwar United Nations organization. To be one of the select UN founding members suggested a better ‘seat at the Big Table’ in terms of trade privileges especially with the large and booming United States market, something most Latin American countries were desperate to have.

In order to insure it had enough votes in forming the UN to assure its Bretton Woods agreement, Nelson Rockefeller personally organized a ‘packing’ of the votes in favor of the US plan by securing the votes of all 14 nations of the Pan American Union, seven of which, including Argentina, had been neutral countries during the war.

Nelson Rockefeller, having just been named by the President as Assistant Secretary for Latin America, gave the nations of Latin America an ultimatum that unless they formally declared war on the Axis Powers by February 1945, they would not be allowed to participate in the creation of the new United Nations Organization, nor to share in the postwar trade bonanza it promised.

That formal declaration of war against the Axis powers was necessary to comply with the just-agreed Three Power Yalta agreements.

Only Argentina remained neutral, but its vote was also needed to counter the balance of British votes. Rockefeller persuaded the ailing FDR to authorize inviting Argentina to join the UN as a founding member, even though it violated the Yalta agreements with Britain and the USSR that only nations that had declared war on Germany could be founding members. The gesture was meaningless in military terms, as the war was already over in a practical sense.

It was a ploy by Nelson Rockefeller to pack the votes against the British who used Britain’s dominions and commonwealth countries to beef up her votes. Stalin was furious at the obvious move by Washington to control the voting members in a way that allowed Washington to dominate the key decision making bodies of the new United Nations. [7]  It confirmed Stalin’s apprehensions that Washington was using the UN, as well as its new IMF and World Bank organizations, as disguised tools for an American economic postwar imperium. His fears were well justified.

The Bretton Woods Dollar System

The Bretton Woods System was to be built around the three pillars: an International Monetary Fund, whose member countries would contribute to an emergency reserve available in times of balance of payment distress; a World Bank, or International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which would provide loans to member governments for large public projects; and, somewhat later, a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, designed to manage ‘free trade’ through multinational tariff reduction talks.

Each member country would be assigned a quota, an amount to pay into a common IMF fund, in currency and gold. According to its share of the overall IMF quota, each would have a proportionate voting right in the Board of Governors. It was a US-dominated game from the outset. The US, as the strongest economy with the largest gold reserves, ended up with some 27% of total votes; the UK had 13%; by contrast and France had a meagre 5%. Thus the new IMF was an American instrument to shape their form of postwar world economic development. [8]

In the end, over the objections of the British, Washington got its way in terms of voting rights, rules and other vital aspects of the new institutions, the IMF and World Bank. The US Treasury would de facto control the new IMF. Voting rights were proportional to a country’s IMF contribution. The US, as the strongest economic power among the initial 29 founding nations, was by far the largest contributor, gaining the largest bloc of votes in the board.

Under the bylaws of the new IMF the US was in a position to block any decision it opposed by virtue of its vote share. By virtue of its large vote, Washington would also be able to control the decisive IMF Executive Board, directing overall policy to the wishes of the US Treasury and Wall Street. To make the US control of the rules of the new postwar monetary game clear, IMF headquarters were located in Washington, close to the US Treasury. Small wonder that Stalin decided not to join the IMF after 1945.

Dollar Standard replaces gold

Very few people, other than a handful of international monetary experts, grasped how skillfully the United States negotiators at Bretton Woods had structured an institutional base for a postwar dollar imperium. Bretton Woods changed the international currency system in a way that was congenial for the United States and an improvement, from their perspective, over the earlier gold standard. The new agreement required all member countries to fix the value of their currencies not to a weight of gold, but to the US dollar. The supply of US dollars in the world would, conveniently, be determined by Washington—the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

In 1945 it was argued—as the British had said about the pound sterling a century before—that the dollar was ‘as good as gold.’ Within two decades that axiom of international financial stability was to prove a tragic delusion. In 1945, however, it was the reality. European countries were starved for dollar credits to rebuild their ravaged infrastructures. Their currencies were not convertible and their economies were in ruins.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank, the private institution controlled by the Wall Street Money Trust since its creation in 1913, was the heart of the system that would now control the majority of the non-communist world’s monetary gold.

For the US, the Bretton Woods currency system had unique and obvious advantages. In practice, since the principal reserve currency would be the US dollar, other countries would have to peg their currencies to the dollar, and—once their free currency convertibility was restored—they would buy and sell those dollars to keep their market exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of their initial 1945 value in relation to that US dollar, as required by IMF rules.

The US dollar thereby took over the role that gold had played under the gold standard in the international financial system before the war. In practice it meant that world trade was almost exclusively transacted in dollars, a decisive advantage for the US, who had unlimited power to print new dollars, unfettered by having to hold gold reserves against new dollar issue. Never had the British in the height of their financial power had such one-sided power over world money as Washington and Wall Street enjoyed after 1945.

The two pillars of American power

The unchallenged role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency was one of two fundamental pillars of American power after the war. The second pillar was the unchallenged role of the United States as military superpower, a superiority that not even the Soviet Union during the Cold War was able to successfully challenge.  The military pillar was obvious to all. Not so obvious was the dollar pillar, especially in the days after World War II.

The nations of Western Europe involved in World War II were deeply in debt after the war. They had been forced to finance their war efforts, especially Britain, as well as numerous exile regimes in London, to transfer large amounts of their gold reserves into the United States, a fact that contributed to the supremacy of the United States as the ‘leader of the Free World’ after 1945. The exact details of the transfer of billions of dollars in foreign central bank gold to the New York Federal Reserve during the war remain buried in secrecy to the present. [9]

Under the Bretton Woods system, after 1945 each member country’s national currency would be pegged to the US dollar. The US dollar was in turn set at an official rate of $35 per fine ounce of gold, the rate set by President Roosevelt in 1934 during the depths of the Great Depression and before the major inflationary effects of a world war. The dollar had inflated enormously during the war years, but was still fixed at $35 per fine ounce of gold, a rate greatly advantageous to the dollar and to Wall Street international banks. Fewer dollars bought more gold.

The distinction from the earlier Gold Exchange system created by J.P. Morgan and Wall Street between 1919-1934 was the fact that this time the United States had no rival, either politically or militarily, for world hegemony. Washington and Wall Street could literally dictate the terms. They did just that.

While the role of the dollar as reserve currency gave US capital an advantage over potential rivals such as British Sterling, the German Mark or French Franc during the postwar period, more importantly, it allowed the US Treasury and Federal Reserve the uncontrolled power to issue virtually unlimited dollars for international lending, regardless of gold backing, as the dollar and not gold was the world reserve commodity.

Because of the unique role of the American dollar as world reserve currency, the United States was able to finance its growing military expenses abroad by issuing new dollars rather than increasing its own gold reserves. To get gold was not easy in a world where gold was sought by most other central banks, but dollars could be created by the US Treasury more or less at will.

Washington’s unique advantage after 1945 was having the US dollar as ‘key currency’ or the cornerstone of world money flows and trade settlement. If the US Government was forced to run a deficit to finance costs of its expanding network of military bases abroad, in effect, outposts of a new informal empire, disguised as defence against Communist expansionism, it could simply issue debt in the form of US Treasury bonds.

Foreign central banks holding surplus trade dollar accumulations had little recourse but to invest their surplus trade dollars in US Treasury debt, in effect financing the US military expansion globally. As the deficits grew, the relation of the dollar supply to a fixed reserve of gold diverged dramatically. In effect the US, as the ‘key currency’ country, was able to export its inflation onto its trading partners in the form of de facto devalued dollars.

Under previous Gold Standard systems — both the interwar years as well as the pre-1914 British Gold Standard — each nation fixed its own currency to gold. Gold was the bedrock of stability, not the Pound Sterling, the dollar or any other single currency. Given its strong position in 1945, for the first time in history, one nation, the United States, was able to impose not gold but its own national currency on the world as the ‘dollar standard.’ Moreover, the supply of those dollars was a question of political will and not of physical supply, as with gold. As Soviet economists rightly pointed out, no other country had such a luxury.[10]

Initially, the IMF and World Bank played only a small role as a slightly modified strategy of geopolitics took shape under the Truman Administration after the death of FDR in April 1945.

The initial idea of Isaiah Bowman’s War & Peace Studies group at the Council on Foreign Relations was that the US would ally with Russia and the other Allied nations after the war to prevent a re-emergence of a strong Germany. China as well as Russia would be an American ally against a potential resurgence of Japan.

However, Truman was influenced by former Moscow Ambassador and Wall Street banker Averell Harriman and by Secretary of State Dean Acheson, both of whom urged stronger opposition to Stalin’s activity in Eastern Europe, even though Truman thereby  violated the agreements reached at Yalta on division of postwar Europe among the three major war powers—Russia, Britain and the USA.

In February 1945 Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had met at Yalta on the Black Sea to discuss the postwar occupation of Germany. Among the agreements signed by the three was an explicit recognition of the fact the Soviet Red Army had liberated Poland and would play a key role in a new Polish government. The three agreed to move the Polish eastern boundary westward to the 1919 Curzon Line and to restore western Byelorussia and the western Ukraine to the Soviet Union. Germany would be ‘temporarily’ divided into three zones of occupation, with France invited to become a fourth occupying power.

Stalin, for his part, promised at Yalta that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan after the fighting ended in Europe. Stalin’s terms for this were accepted by Roosevelt and Churchill, as follows: the southern Sakhalin and adjacent islands to be returned to the Soviet Union; Darien to be internationalized; Port Arthur to be leased as a naval base to the Soviet Union; Chinese-Soviet companies to operate the Chinese Eastern and the South Manchurian railroads; Outer Mongolia to remain independent of China; and the Kurile Islands to be handed over to the Soviet Union. China would be sovereign in Manchuria.

The man in charge of working out the details of Yalta for Roosevelt was then-US Ambassador to Moscow, Averell Harriman, the man whose investment bank had had extensive wartime involvement with the Nazi Reich.

FDR’s grandiose plans for using the United Nations to extend the American Lebensraum were put on hold by Truman, who preferred that Washington would pursue the same goals bilaterally instead. Rather than build on their wartime cooperation with the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany, the United States would team up with Britain against their wartime ally. By rolling back the Yalta agreements, Washington could be assured Stalin would react aggressively to defend what he saw as Russia’s vital security interests in Eastern Europe by force if necessary. Such was the trap set for Stalin by Churchill and later by Washington. Stalin took the bait.

Churchill had come to Truman’s home state of Missouri in 1946 to deliver his famous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech in the small town of Fulton, proclaiming that a new division of Europe was underway. Since at least 1943 Churchill and the British Round Table circles near him calculated they needed to create a new conflict with the Soviets in order to make Britain indispensable to the inexperienced Washington as the ‘mediator’ between the Soviets and the United States.

Early in 1945, before the German surrender, Churchill had ordered captured German divisions to be maintained intact, along with their weapons, for possible further deployment against the Soviet Red Army. This was an extraordinary and unprecedented procedure. The plan was vetoed on military grounds by General Eisenhower and the White House. It revealed however that the British were already preparing the ground for the next phase in their ‘Balance of Power’ world.[11] Washington and London were already secretly back-stabbing their ally Russia.

By 1945 Churchill had realized that Britain would have to put up a hard fight with Washington to maintain even a semblance of its pre-war power. Truman made clear very early in his Administration that such would be the case.

When Truman unexpectedly canceled Lend-Lease aid to Britain just after the Japanese surrender in August 1945, and demanded repayment of Britain’s war credits, Washington signaled the new postwar order. By war’s end Britain’s gold and dollar reserves were down to less than $1,500 millions and her short term debt stood at a staggering $12 billion. England’s non-war related industry was in desolate condition. Coal production had fallen dramatically; electricity blackouts were common. Millions of returning soldiers had to be reintegrated into a tattered civilian economy.

If Churchill and the British could lure Truman into a new confrontation with Russia, there was a chance that Britain would become indispensable to Washington and at least preserve a semblance of its former Great Power standing. That at least was the logic in London.[12]

Canceling Lend-Lease was clearly hostile to London, particularly as Truman made an exception in continuing Lend-Lease aid to China at the same time.[13]  The cancellation of US credits and supplies to Britain was consistent with the CFR’s strategy of maintaining the weakened position of America’s one potential economic rival for the postwar era—Great Britain—especially its Sterling Preference agreements with its dominions and vast number of colonies around the world. The architects of the American Century had no intention of dealing with anyone, not even its old ally Great Britain, as an equal.

Roosevelt and the Rockefellers clearly had not gone to war in order to save the British Empire. Exactly the opposite. Roosevelt and Truman both knew that Britain would have to be brought to her knees before she would agree to be junior partner in an Anglo-American ‘Special Relationship.’ As Britain’s Harold Macmillan, wartime emissary of Winston Churchill, expressed the new reality to Richard Crossman, a prominent British Social Democrat,

We, my dear Crossman, are Greeks in this American Empire. You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans—great big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are and more idle, with more unspoiled virtues but also more corrupt. We must run Allied Forces Headquarters as the Greek slaves ran the operations of the Emperor Claudius. [14]

Churchill’s April 1946 Iron Curtain speech in Fulton Missouri marked the turning point in swinging Washington behind England’s confrontationist policy towards Stalin and the Soviet Union. The Anglo-American postwar ‘special relationship’ was not to be a marriage of equals no matter how much London wished. But at least they were still in the game as they saw it, even if it was an American game.

That American ‘game’ was to use its military and economic power to create a new economic imperium using the manufactured threat of Soviet spread of communism as the new global threat replacing Hitler’s armies.

[1] Harold Macmillan, quoted in Christopher Hitchens, Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990), p. 23.

[2] Phillip Cagan, Determinants of Change in the Stock of Money: 1875-1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), p. 341.

[3] In a curious footnote to the history of Bretton Woods, following the opening of secret Soviet archives after 1991, it was confirmed that White, as later US intelligence circles suspected, had indeed been a member of the Silvermaster Soviet spy ring within the US Government. On reports of his possible Soviet role, Truman rescinded his nomination as first Director General of the new International Monetary Fund, without explanation.

White had played a role in formulating the notorious Morgenthau Plan for the deindustrialization of postwar Germany, a plan which makes more sense as a Soviet rather than US goal, though Roosevelt, a fervent Germanophobe, heartily backed the idea until his death. The plan, under US military directive JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) 1067, would allow the Western occupation powers and the Soviet Union dismember German industrial plant and turn the nation into a ‘pastoral’ food supplier. In March 1945 just days before his death, when Roosevelt was warned that the JCS was not workable, unless he were ready to eliminate 25 million Germans, his response was ‘Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!’ Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, ‘Why not?’ FDR also reportedly told Morgenthau, ‘We have got to be tough with the Germans and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can’t just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.’ On May 10, 1945, following the death of FDR, Truman signed the JCS 1067. It remained in effect for two brutal years, despite the strong protest of Churchill and others. See Michael R. Beschloss, The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1941–1945, p. 196 for the FDR quote.  See Allen Weinstein & Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood, 1999, Random House, New York, p. 90 for the details of Harry Dexter White’s KGB activities as revealed in declassified Soviet archives after the end of the Cold War.

[4] Neil Smith, American Empire: Roosevelt’s Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2003),  p. xii.

[5] Cited in Gideon Rachman, The Bretton Woods Sequel will Flop, London Financial Times, November 10, 2008.

[6] M.W. Kirby, op. cit., pp. 91-92.

[7]  Peter Collier & David Horowitz, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1976), pp. 234-235.

[8] Victor Argy, The Postwar International Monetary Crisis (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), p. 24.

[9] A. Stadnichenko, Monetary Crisis of Capitalism, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), pp. 88-101.

[10] Ibid, pp. 100-103.

[11] Fraser J. Harbutt, The Iron Curtain: Churchill, America and the Origins of the Cold War (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 101-149.

[12] Sir Richard Clarke, Anglo-American Economic Collaboration 1942-1949 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982),  pp. 21-26.

[13] Richard N. Gardner, Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), pp. 184-186.

[14] Harold Macmillan, op. cit.

============================

What Happens Next for China—Collapse or War with the US?

What Happens Next for China. Collapse or War with the US  by Doug Casey, InternationalMan.com, 2 July 2020

International Man: While many have been distracted by the unrest in the US, tensions with China are soaring.

Recently, Beijing passed a national security law that would undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy. What comes next for US-China relations?

Doug Casey: I lived in Hong Kong, on and off, from 1985 to 2005. When I first moved there, it was a Chinese city, but there were a lot of Western expats.

When I returned most recently, it had transformed into a Chinese city with very few expats. They’d all gone to Singapore.

What’s happening in Hong Kong is unfortunate, but frankly, it’s none of our business. Unfortunate things are happening in a hundred places around the world. You just can’t solve other people’s problems for them, nor should you try. Nobody likes a busybody.

As I’ve said so many times in the past, the US government has got to stop sticking its nose in other people’s business. The US has been acting as the world’s self-appointed cop since at least WWII, as often as not stepping in on the side of the bad guys—whether it knew it or not— and bankrupting itself while making enemies in the process.

In the case of Hong Kong, my view is that the Beijing regime is totally wrong, but it would be a disastrous error for us to get involved.

The same goes for the South and East China Seas, which were in the news a few years back. The US is sending a bunch of aircraft carriers there to show the flag, which is dangerous and provocative and none of our business. Just as it would be none of China’s business if the US decided to make the Gulf of Mexico its own private backyard sea. Should China try to contest that? Should China step in if Mexico decided the Gulf is really its territorial water?

The fact is that Chinese and US businessmen get along just fine. If the Chinese prove to be unethical or dishonest, a US business should just stop working with the firm that cheats them. Why should the US government be involved?

The US and Chinese governments are posturing at each other like a couple of angry chimpanzees. The Chinese government and the US government are both dead hands on their economies. Neither serves a useful purpose. They’re the problem, not Chinese and American businessmen.

Taiwan is another simmering problem.

The Chinese government sees Taiwan as a breakaway secessionist province. They don’t recognize its independence, much as Lincoln didn’t recognize the Confederacy. I think it’s great the Taiwanese are independent, but it’s not our problem. It’s just as stupid for the US government to chance a war there as it would be for the Brazilian government to make Taiwan its business.

International Man: What does it mean for the economy and US politics?

Doug Casey: Well, there’s a huge trade deficit between the US and China, which Trump loves to point out.

I don’t see that as a problem at all.

The Chinese produce stuff and the US consumes it. It’s one-sided—to the American consumer’s benefit. We pay them in US dollars, which will soon be treated like Old Maid cards, created by the trillions. If the US government wants the deficit to stop, it only has to stop its printing presses.

The fact is that the Chinese economy has been tremendously successful because it dumped communism starting in 1980 and free-marketized. The progress that they’ve made in the last 40 years is totally unprecedented in world history as a result. Well, unprecedented for a country that size—because Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, all city-states—have done at least as well by implementing low taxes and almost no regulations.

That said, the Chinese economy could actually collapse. Why? Because the expansion that they’ve gone through over the last 40 years has been financed by hundreds of millions of Mrs. Wongs saving half of their income. They save it in Chinese yuan, and they put it in the banks. The banks lend it to governmental entities and businesses.

It’s a debt-driven economy, not an equity-driven economy. The PRC has made huge progress, but—unlike Hong Kong, Singapore, or Taiwan—it’s built on bank debt. The yuan isn’t a sound currency.

China has an active stock market, and it’s true that Mrs. Wong is involved in the stock market. But the Chinese stock market doesn’t raise capital so much as substitute for a casino. Mrs. Wong trades the stock market but treats it like a version of the Macau casinos.

Because the Chinese economy is built on debt from the banks, and because the government controls so much of the economy, a lot of that debt has been misallocated. And can’t be repaid. Remember, whenever the State is involved, things are done mainly for political, not economic, reasons. And there’s always corruption whenever government is involved.

How so? Everybody’s heard about the scores of new Chinese cities that have been built but largely unoccupied, combined with roads and bridges that go nowhere. Is it brilliant strategic thinking or a gigantic example of State “planning” and bureaucratic stupidity? I can’t say from a current boots-on-the-ground standpoint because it’s been about five years since I’ve been to China proper. But I believe that there’s been a huge waste of capital—because it’s being politically allocated.

If Mrs. Wong goes to take her yuan out of the bank and she can’t because it has been put into uneconomic projects or if she gets her yuan back and they’re worth nothing—there could be a revolution in China.

As the US descends into the Greater Depression, a lot of Chinese factories producing for the US market are going to be in trouble. That will result in a lot of Chinese unemployment, mostly urban. China has had one of the great mass migrations of history since 1980—most peasants have moved from the countryside into the city.

If people in the cities become unemployed, they’re going to blame the government, and their government will blame the US. The whole world revolves around government today. It’s not just true in the US and China, but all countries.

What’s the upshot of this? Will manufacturing return to the US? I don’t think so because the US isn’t very business-friendly. For one thing, taxes in the US are going to go up.

Most governments—the US government, the states, cities, and local governments—are more bankrupt than ever before because of the COVID hysteria. These governments are also adding regulations—they’re not deregulating. Why should businesses come back to the US and be subject to vastly more regulations than in the Orient? US labor costs are also higher, even though labor is less and less an element in manufacturing.

As taxes and regulation grow, at some point the US is likely to have foreign exchange controls to keep capital from leaving. A word to the wise on that subject—diversify abroad. In any event, during a depression, the general standard of living goes down. It’ll go down both for the Chinese, who will be producing less. And for the Americans, who’ll be consuming less.

International Man: What are your thoughts on China’s future overall?

Doug Casey: First, I’d like to point out that a lot of people still refer to the country as “Communist China.” That’s a huge misnomer.

It hasn’t been a communist system for 40 years, since Deng Xiaoping reformed the economy. China may still have pictures of Mao on their currency, but it has nothing to do with communism anymore.

The Communist Party is just a scam, benefitting its members alone. They get to live high off the hog. The Communist Party is nothing more than the Chinese Deep State. It no longer has anything to do with Marx, Lenin, or Mao—an unexpected plus.

We shouldn’t call it communist China, because it’s not communist. It’s not even socialist. They have a fascist system, just like we have in the US. In other words, business is privately owned, and consumer goods are widely available—but it’s all controlled by the State. It’s an authoritarian system. The Chinese have moved towards the US system, even while the US is moving towards the Chinese system.

What’s next for China?

There’s an excellent chance China will go the way of Yugoslavia, which broke up into six smaller countries, or the USSR, which broke into 15. Czechoslovakia broke up into two. Or the United Kingdom, for that matter, which is probably going to become disunited. This is a trend all over the world today. Countries are subdividing into smaller ethnic-based units. It could happen in China. And the US as well—but that’s a whole different conversation.

About 80% of the people in China are ethnic Han Chinese; most speak Mandarin as their mother language as well.

At the same time, there are scores of other languages and cultures within China, representing over 300 million—that’s a lot of people.

For instance, in Southern China—Hong Kong, Guangzhou—the native language isn’t Mandarin. It’s Cantonese. They use the same ideograms as Mandarin does, but the language is as unintelligible to a native Mandarin speaker as, say, Danish is to an English speaker.

We’re talking about 68 million native Cantonese speakers. That’s a huge number. It’s larger than most countries in Europe.

The same is true of the Shanghai-ese.

I’m not even counting Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang—which are all actually separate countries with ethnically, culturally, and linguistically different natives. They’re being purposefully overwhelmed, demographically conquered, by the Han Chinese. There are a dozen other seriously different countries within China itself.

I don’t doubt that when the going gets tough, they’re going to look to independence, as opposed to being bossed by Beijing. Of course, the central government will resist violently, the same way the Russians recently did with the Chechens, the Burmese did with the Karens and Rohinga, or the Indonesians with the East Timorese. But there are scores of other examples.

It’s not unlikely China will break up into autonomous regions run by warlords, much the way it was during the 1930s. As outlandish as that might sound.

International Man: What are the odds of a military clash over Taiwan, Hong Kong, or the South China Sea, and what would be the consequences of that?

Doug Casey: Well, it’s quite possible. But why does that have to be the problem of the US?

It’s almost impossible for the US to invade China. What kind of attack can the US mount? Is the US going to launch a bunch of ICBMs onto Chinese cities?

That makes no sense because the Chinese have their own ICBMs to fire back. That’s not what World War III is likely to look like. And there will be something resembling World War 3. History hasn’t ended, contrary to Fukuyama’s silly book of some years ago.

So if the US can’t and won’t invade China and won’t do an ICBM strike, what will they do? If it comes to a hot war, it will look like what I described in our recent interview.

But, along the way, the US government will try to destroy the Chinese economy.

Getting into a military dust-up with the Chinese—using aircraft and aircraft carriers—would be a catastrophe for the Americans. The Chinese have sophisticated bases all along their shore. This makes the dozen or so US aircraft carriers nothing but sitting ducks.

They’d be turned into artificial reefs. I’m sure divers of the next century will enjoy that—but today’s Americans won’t. A war is not out of the question, but, again, it won’t be a conventional war using today’s military junk. It’s not really feasible, although the generals and admirals will be the last ones to figure that out.

International Man: Recent polls suggest that nearly 2/3 of Americans have a negative view of China. What role will China play in the upcoming presidential election?

Doug Casey: That is an interesting question, especially in the context of the race riots now taking place in the US right now.

When the going gets tough in any country, it makes all the sense in the world for that country’s government to find a foreign enemy to unite the people. In the case of the US, they’d hope to change the equation from whites versus blacks and browns, to Americans against the Chinese.

Of course, they’ve played this card against Iraq and Iran. They played it against Russia.

When we talk about racism, the fact is that almost every ethnic group considers itself to be special or superior. That absolutely includes the Chinese. In fact, the Chinese, as a group, probably have more belief in their racial superiority than any other group. That augurs poorly for world peace.

But will the Chinese have anything to do with the coming election? I’d say very little. In so far as they do, however, they’re going to be Democrat-leaning. The US still thinks it has a monopoly on interfering with other countries’ elections and governments.

The Chinese dislike nationalists such as Trump. Trump is capable of all kinds of foolishness, as he’s already shown, with import duties and quotas. They’d much rather have a globalist who would try to cooperate with them.

As you know, I made a money bet that Trump would win in 2016. This time, I don’t care about Trump losing, per se. He’s a guy with no philosophical core, although he is a cultural conservative, and against PC types and cultural Marxists on a gut level.

What I really care about is the Democrats not winning, because that would be a catastrophe. Unfortunately, however, the collectivists have momentum on their side. Why? They have an actual philosophy, even if it’s a very bad one. The Republicans, however, have none. They only counter by saying their enemy is going too far, too fast. That’s why they always come off as confused and weak hypocrites.

If I was going to put money on it this time, the winner is likely to be whoever cheats best. Both sides are going to stuff the ballot boxes and do all kinds of things with electronic voting and voting by mail.

The Democrats, however, are much more professional and experienced at this type of thing than the Republicans. They’re likely to win.

Editor’s Note: The US empire has overstretched itself across the world. Today, the US is actively at war in about half a dozen countries. But perhaps the biggest danger is the rivalry with China, which has the potential to dethrone the US as the top global power.

China has a secret weapon that could bring the US to its knees. China can cut off the supply of rare commodities that are crucial to powering modern life. The US is scrambling to find a way to neutralize this threat before it’s too late.

=============================

Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?

Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement  By Mike Whitney, The UNZ Review, 15 June 2020

“Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the street. But it’s the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks.” Foreign Policy Journal

Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the killing of George Floyd?

It’s all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative that applauds the “mainly peaceful protests” while ignoring the vast destruction to cities across the country. What’s that all about? Do the instigators of these demonstrations want to see our cities reduced to urban wastelands where street gangs and Antifa thugs impose their own harsh justice? That’s where this is headed, isn’t it?

Of course there are millions of protesters who honestly believe they’re fighting racial injustice and police brutality. And more power to them. But that certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t hidden agendas driving these outbursts. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the protest movement is actually the perfect vehicle for affecting dramatic social changes that only serve the interests of elites. For example, who benefits from defunding the police? Not African Americans, that’s for sure. Black neighborhoods need more security not less. And yet, the New York Times lead editorial on Saturday proudly announces, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won’t happen.” Check it out:

“We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police….There is not a single era in United States history in which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves. In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations to protect the status quo.

So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job…” (“Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won’t happen”, New York Times)

So, according to the Times, the problem isn’t single parent families, or underfunded education or limited job opportunities or fractured neighborhoods, it’s the cops who have nothing to do with any of these problems. Are we supposed to take this seriously, because the editors of the Times certainly do. They’d like us to believe that there is groundswell support for this loony idea, but there isn’t. In a recent poll, more than 60% of those surveyed, oppose the idea of defunding the police. So why would such an unpopular, wacko idea wind up as the headline op-ed in the Saturday edition? Well, because the Times is doing what it always does, advancing the political agenda of the elites who hold the purse-strings and dictate which ideas are promoted and which end up on the cutting room floor. That’s how the system works. Check out this excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:

“The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out a family’s lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country undergoing collapse. This is why it is not shown in national media. Some local media show an indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction is only a local occurance… I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts.” (“The Real Racists”, Paul Craig Roberts, Unz Review)

Roberts makes a good point, and one that’s worth mulling over. Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they’ve changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice?

Nonsense. The media’s role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we’re seeing play out in over 400 cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. That hasn’t changed, in fact, it’s gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the country. This isn’t about racial justice or police brutality, it’s about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. Take a look at this article at The Herland Report:

“What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower and end the national sovereignty principles that president Trump stands for in America….

The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal and nothing else has worked. The aim is to end democracy in the United States, control Congress and politics and assemble the power into the hands of the very few…

It is all about who will own the United States and have free access to its revenues: Either the American people under democracy or globalist billionaire individuals.” (“Politicized USA Gene Sharp riots is another attempted coup d’etat – New Left Tyranny” The Herland Report

That sounds about right to me. The protests are merely a fig leaf for a “color revolution” that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70 years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks like it. Here’s more from the same article:

“Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in.”

So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn’t mean that someone else is not steering the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang’s website Sic Semper Tyrannis:

“The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives “execute orders?”

Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of “Defund the Police” is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have an excuse.” (“My take on the present situation”, Sic Semper Tyrannis)

Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa’s “logistical capabilities”. The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. It’s beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.

None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA’s color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose “shock therapy” on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here’s a short excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog “Another Day in the Empire”:

“The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder….

It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main problem—boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all—black, white, yellow, brown—as expliotable and dispensable serfs.” (“2 Million Arab Lives Don’t Matter“, Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)

The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.

===================

Let’s tear it all down at the dawn of Great Awokening

Let’s tear it all down at the dawn of Great Awokening  Lead editorial, The Australian, 13 June 2020

HBO Max pulls Gone With the Wind from its streaming service. Cranks are burning and composting JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books. Winston Churchill’s statue is defaced. A staff hissy fit over an opinion article at The New York Times forces an editor to quit. The intolerable killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis has lit fires for all manner of intolerances, under the banners of racial equality and identity politics. While calling for compassion and tolerance, activists intimidate and destroy. In another week in the creep of the “woke” state, where social media police drop a knee on freedoms and thoughts are cancelled as easily as a swipe and delete, ordinary people could think the world is off kilter. Never mind that we are in a cook-off between great powers, economies are shrinking and the coronavirus is sweeping the globe; someone, somewhere is threatened by an opinion that’s different, outraged by a historical relic, triggered by works of art, films, books and their creators. Control + alt + delete is a pathology.

A horrible death in Minneapolis has unleashed a scramble for moral supremacy. The fight is not waged in a robust contest of ideas but through the silencing, deplatforming, bullying and defaming of opponents. It’s a brazen attempt to overthrow what we value in liberal democracy by those who slander it as a system of minority oppression and impoverishment. An ordinary person, not knowing whether to laugh or cry, may wonder: How did we get to this miserable place? Yet liberalism has been under assault for some time, from within universities and political parties, by oligopolist tech titans and those with control of the cultural ramparts.

It’s acute in the US, as Paul Kelly detailed in Inquirer last week, with polarisation at the extremes and a hollowing out of the political centre, with its middle-class suburban stability, anchor of family life, aspiration and widely shared cultural norms. Beneath this is a crisis in liberalism. “The new age of rising anger and grievance is defined by excessive individualism and the relentless rise of subcultures, both trends advanced by technology,” Kelly argued. “These are the killing agents stalking the liberal order.” The killing of Floyd has exposed an America where trust has evaporated. As US social psychologist Jonathan Haidt observed, the battle between conservatives and progressives is a struggle between “different cultures”, with a descent into tribal identities and inter-group conflicts a threat to democracy itself.

This degradation has its roots in the progressive takeover of universities in the West. The dominant fashions of postmodernism and critical theory junked any pretence of searching for the truth or objectivity, opening the space for rampant identity politics, purity tests and the shutdown of free speech. The arrival on campus at the turn of the century of millennials, followed soon after by younger, anxious snowflake siblings, supercharged the dynamic. Some have labelled it the “Great Awokening”. These students were showing us what would happen when social media became the public square for democracy at a time of collapse of mainstream media, cyber trolling by China and Russia, and the rise of fake news. What started as a cult, if not quite a culture, of safe spaces, aversion to criticism, thought policing and primacy of identity in the social sciences has taken hold in all institutions, especially education, media, the public sector, corporations, even science, health and medicine.

Rather than being institutions of open debate, rigorous inquiry and academic freedom, universities have quickly succumbed to the tyranny of “diversity” and the perversion of scientific method. We see it here in different guises and fields, and in the legal travails of Peter Ridd at James Cook University and Drew Pavlou at the University of Queensland. As well, universities have been at the forefront of the “diversity industrial complex”, pledging “gender equity” and other fads. Diversity, in this instance, is simply identity politics with critical theory and anti-capitalist overtones, rather than a multiplicity of viewpoints. Even in times of financial crisis, universities protect these bloated, feel-good bureaucracies, which are at odds with learning, inquiry and freedom.

But the mainstream is waking up to what is going on in these citadels, with the riots, cancellations and lily-livered responses by culture controllers signalling a tipping point. The lunacy has spilled into crusades to defund police departments, tear down statues of dead “oppressors” like Cecil Rhodes and James Cook, purge platforms of comedies such as Little Britain and Chris Lilley’s satires, and push wacky “critical race theories” that the West is “structurally racist”. Apart from being boring, corrosive and limiting, this is dangerous, dodgy terrain. On Friday art photographer Bill Henson called this out as “fascist revisionism”, seeing parallels with Pol Pot’s Year Zero and the Cultural Revolution in China. He argued Mao Zedong — who said, “We must abolish the Four Olds: old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas” — was a “precedent for these millennial tantrums”.

In the news business, the malaise is a symptom and cause of decline. In the Philadelphia Inquirer, a headline — Buildings Matter, Too — over a story by its architecture critic in the wake of damage to buildings from rioting, hastened the end for its top editor. Staff members saw it as an affront to the Black Lives Matter cause. The woke rebellion at The New York Times was over publication of a piece by Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, who called for troops to be sent in to restore order in US cities, an opinion shared by millions of Americans. The journalistic bastion, whose mission is “All the news that’s fit to print”, is in schism. As columnist Bari Weiss noted, it’s a split between mature libertarians, who put an emphasis on the “all” of its motto, and young progressives fixated on narrowing the meaning of “fit”. These baby merchants of truth and punishment were triggered by Senator Cotton’s opinions.

Imagine working for perhaps the most influential US media outlet and needing a safe space from ideas, history or reality? It’s OK because the new NYT opinion chief advised staff that anyone who finds “any piece of Opinion journalism — including headlines or social posts or photos or you name it — that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately”. Get me my blanky! As The Wall Street Journal duly noted, the resignations of two editors were another milestone in the march of identity politics and cancel culture through liberal institutions. “The agents of this politics now dominate nearly all of America’s leading cultural institutions — museums, philanthropy, Hollywood, book publishers, even late-night talk shows,” the Journal editorialised. At home, whether it’s in the coverage of US riots, local protests, trials of culture war enemies such as George Pell, or the meat, potatoes and organic greens of politics and policy, your ABC is similarly afflicted. This mulishness leads to blind spots and a lack of curiosity, with these activist-friendly news brands completely missing the forces behind, say, Brexit and the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

As we’re seeing in the rush to topple monuments, cancel culture shows a profound failure to understand history, where horror and glory are intertwined, often in the same person, and great civilisations have atrocious failings, including near universal slavery. The revival of unironic cheer squads for socialism among Gen Z, who drop “Nazi” as a weapon like grandparents dropped acid, is dispiriting. They clearly know nothing of communism and the bastard symbiosis between Nazis and Stalinists. There’s narcissism at play, for sure, but also a wilful, luxuriant ignorance of history. Anyway, why over-think a slogan, hashtag or meme? As Geoffrey Blainey argues in Inquirer the essence of studying history is to try to see the obstacles and dilemmas people of the past struggled against or evaded. “We also hope that the future will try to understand why we made blunders, and learn from failures and achievements of our era,” he writes.

Amid the tumult, this time of the Great Awokening, there are signs people are pushing back against the tide of despair and rage, of dismal forgetting and fracturing. One is in the sheer ridiculousness of these excesses. Frankly, the mainstream, as opposed to vice-chancellors and chief executives, will never give a damn about activist pieties. On many measures, the world has never been a better or safer place, although COVID-19 has shocked us out of any complacency about risks to health and harmony. Our enduring values are from the Enlightenment, where science, technology and reason prevailed. That legacy is not completely lost, nor faith in democracy. But we need running repairs, emphasising open inquiry, civil debate, the virtues of liberalism in all its manifestations, and the power of individuals to promote that reform. The zealots of the Zeitgeist — mad, bad and dangerous to know, as Lord Byron’s lover once described him — are prone to overreach and hubris. Like other despots, they can still be toppled by evidence, reality, reason and informed democratic consent.

========================

Previous articles

The great ‘reset’. Will fiat currencies and economies collapse? Then what?

Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals.   The outlook is dire. 

Scroll to end to view previous articles

Central Banks Driving Gold

Central Banks Driving Gold  By Jim Rickards, for The Daily Reckoning, 2 July 2020

Gold as an asset class is confusing to most investors. Even sophisticated investors are accustomed to hearing gold ridiculed as a “shiny rock” and hearing serious gold analysts mocked as “gold bugs,” “gold nuts” or worse.

As a gold analyst, I grew used to this a long time ago. But, it’s still disconcerting when one realizes the extent to which gold is simply not taken seriously or is treated as a mere commodity no different than soy beans or wheat.

The reasons for this disparaging approach to gold are not difficult to discern. Economic elites and academic economists control the central banks. The central banks control what we now consider “money” (dollars, euros, yen and other major currencies).

Those who control the money supply can indirectly control economies and the destiny of nations simply by deciding when and how much to ease or tighten credit conditions, and when to favour (or disfavour) certain types of lending.

When you ease credit conditions in a difficult environment, you help favored institutions (mainly banks) to survive. If you tighten credit conditions in a difficult environment, you can more or less guarantee that certain companies, banks or even nations will fail.

This power is based on money and the money is controlled by central banks, primarily the Federal Reserve System. However, the money-based power depends on a monopoly on money creation.

As long as investors and institutions are forced into a dollar-based system, then control of the dollar equates to control of those institutions. The minute another form of money competes with the dollar (or euro, etc.) as a store of value and medium of exchange, then the control of the power elites is broken.

This is why the elites disparage and marginalize gold. It’s easy to show why gold is a better form of money, why it’s more reliable than central bank money for preserving wealth, and why it’s a threat to the money-monopoly that the elites depend upon to maintain power.

Not only is gold a superior form of money, it’s also not under the control of any central bank or group of individuals. Yes, miners control new output, but annual output is only about 1.8% of all the above-ground gold in the world.

The value of gold is determined not by new output, but by the above-ground supply, which is 190,000 metric tonnes. Most of that above-ground supply is either owned by central banks and finance ministries (about 34,000 metric tonnes) or is held privately either as jewelry (“wearable wealth”) or bullion (coins and bars).

The floating supply available for day-to-day trading and investment is only a small fraction of the total supply. Gold is valuable and is a powerful form of money, but it’s not under the control of any single institution or group of institutions.

Clearly gold is a threat to the central bank money monopoly. Gold cannot be made to disappear (it’s too valuable), and it would be almost impossible to confiscate (despite persistent rumors to that effect).

If gold is a threat to central bank money and cannot be made to disappear, then it must be discredited. It becomes important for central bankers and academic economists to construct a narrative that’s easily absorbed by everyday investors that says gold is not money.

The narrative goes like this:

There’s not enough gold in the world to support trade and commerce.(That’s false: there’s always enough gold, it’s just a question of price. The same amount of gold supports a larger amount of transactions when the price is raised).

Gold supply cannot expand fast enough to keep up with economic growth.(That’s false: It confuses the official supply with the total supply. Central banks can always expand the official supply by printing money and buying gold from private hands. That expands the money supply and supports economic expansion).

Gold causes financial panics and crashes.(That’s false: There were panics and crashes during the gold standard and panics and crashes since the gold standard ended. Panics and crashes are not caused or cured by gold. They are caused by a loss of confidence in banks, paper money or the economy. There is no correlation between gold and financial panic).

Gold caused and prolonged the Great Depression.(That’s false: Even Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke have written that the Great Depression was caused by the Fed. During the Great Depression, base money supply could be 250% of the market value of official gold. Actual money supply never exceeded 100% of the gold value. In other words, the Fed could have more than doubled the money supply even with a gold standard. It failed to do so. That’s a Fed failure not a gold failure).

You get the point. There’s a clever narrative about why gold is not money. But, the narrative is false. It’s simply the case that everyday citizens believe what the economists say (usually a bad idea) or don’t know enough economic history to refute the economists (and how could you know the history if they stopped teaching it fifty years ago).

The bottom line is that economists know that gold could be a perfectly usable form of money. The reason they don’t want it is because it dilutes their monopoly power over printed money and therefore reduces their political power over people and nations.

To marginalize gold, they created a phony narrative about why gold doesn’t work as money. Most people were too easily impressed by the narrative or simply didn’t know enough to challenge it. Therefore the narrative wins even if it is false.

If gold is viable as a form of money, what does gold’s recent price trading range combined with fundamental factors tell us about its investment prospects?

Right now, my models are telling me that gold is poised to breakout of its recent narrow trading range.

As always in technical analysis, the term “breakout” can mean sharply higher or sharply lower prices. Using fundamental analysis, a breakout to sharply higher prices is the expected outcome. This may be the last opportunity to buy gold below $2,000 per ounce.

For the past three months, gold has been trading in a range between $1,685 per ounce and $1,790 per ounce (it’s trading at about $1,782 today). For most of those three months gold was trading in a fairly narrow band.

When trading a volatile asset narrows to that extent, it’s a sign that the asset is ready for a material technical breakout. The question is will gold breakout to the upside or downside?

To answer that question, we can turn to fundamental analysis. (Technical analysis is data rich and is useful for spotting patterns, but it has low predictive analytic power).

One of the most important fundamental factors forcing gold higher is shown in Chart 1 below. This shows central bank purchases of gold bullion from 2017 to 2020 (each year is shown as a separate line measured in metric tonnes on the left scale).

Chart 1 – Central Bank purchases of gold
(in metric tonnes) 2017 – 2020

Chart 1 shows significant purchases of gold with 2019 running ahead of 2017 and 2018 at about 500 metric tonnes.

The chart also shows over 150 metric tonnes of gold purchases through April 2020, which puts 2020 on track to show 450 metric tonnes purchased for the year if present trends hold.

Of course, the actual result could be higher or lower. Cumulative central bank purchases from January 2017 to April 2020 are approximately 2,050 metric tonnes.

In fact, central banks went from being net sellers to net buyers of gold in 2010, and that net buying position has persisted ever since. The largest buyers are Russia and China, but significant purchases have also been made by Iran, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Mexico and Vietnam.

Here’s the bottom line:

Central banks have a monopoly on central bank money. Gold is the competitor to central bank money and most central banks would prefer to ignore gold. Yet, central banks in the aggregate are net buyers of gold.

In effect, central banks are signaling through their actions that they are losing confidence in their own money and their money monopoly. They’re getting ready for the day when confidence in central bank money will collapse across the board. In that world, gold will be the only form of money anyone wants.

Central banks are voting with their printing presses in favor of gold. What are you waiting for?

Here’s a once in a lifetime opportunity to front run central banks and acquire your own gold at attractive prices before the curtain drops on paper money.

Regards,

Jim Rickards
for The Daily Reckoning

========================

The Sneaky Covid War on Cash

 

The Sneaky Covid War on Cash  By Viv Forbes, saltbushclub.com, 19 June 2020


The modern road to
Mulberry Money, Shin Plaster and Cubic Currency.


To download this article with all images click:
https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mulberry-money.pdf

 

Fiat Money

Today’s world is awash with Fiat Money.

“Fiat” means “let it be so”.

Fiat money is token currency supplied and regulated by governments and central banks. Its value relies on a government decree that it alone must be used as “legal tender” in paying for anything in that country. Its value falls as its supply increases.

Fiat money is not new – Marco Polo described its use in China over 700 years ago. Travellers and traders entering China were forced by Kublai Khan to exchange their real money (gold and silver coins and bars) for his coupons, made from mulberry bark, each numbered and stamped with the Khan’s seal. The Khan decreed that local traders were forced to accept them (“legal tender”). Foreigners got the goods, the great Khan got the bullion and the Chinese traders got the mulberry bark (a bit like getting the rough end of a pineapple). By controlling the supply and exchange rates for mulberry money, he became fabulously wealthy, and his citizens were impoverished.

During the American War of Independence, the colonial rebels had no organised taxing power so they printed the Continental dollar to finance the war. As the war dragged on, they printed too many dollars, and its fast debasement gave rise to the phrase “Not worth a continental”. Later, in the American civil war, confederate paper money used to support the army also became worthless. It was widely referred to as “shin-plaster”, after its highest value use in helping to bandage wounds.

Many dictators over the years tried the fiat money trick, but so many lost their heads or their thrones that it fell into disuse, being replaced by trusted real money such as English sovereigns,  Spanish doubloons, Austro-Hungarian thalers and American gold eagles. Only in wartime (or in a Covid panic) are people sufficiently distracted or scared to allow rulers to secretly tax everyone who holds their depreciating pretend money. (Keynesian academics promote this destructive policy for peace time use.)

Financing Big Wars

The last century or so has seen the explosion of big governments and big wars – race wars, class wars, world wars, regional wars, the war on want, the war on drugs, the war on inflation, the war on terrorists, the war on carbon and now the COVID world war.

All wars cost heaps of money. They are so expensive that to raise the full cost from honest taxes alone would cause a revolt.

The monetary watershed was World War I, which saw governments mobilise all community resources to the war effort. Money printing plus ration cards were their main tools. Money creation destroyed currencies everywhere. The cost of the war destroyed the German currency and the replacement papier mark was subject to the terrible German inflation of 1923 which gave rise to the Marxists followed by the Nazis.

Even the mighty pound sterling was fatally weakened and the discipline of the gold/silver standard was gradually destroyed. The British gold sovereign, first minted by Henry VII in the 16th century, disappeared from circulation at the height of the Great War in 1917. The British pound became a fiat currency in 1931 and silver started to disappear from British and Australian currency in 1945 after the Second Great War.  Even the mighty US dollar started on the road to ruin during the Vietnam War and gold convertibility was suspended by Richard Nixon in 1971.

We have seen the death of much of the world’s funny money in just the last 40 years. For example, in Peru, one million Intis would buy a modest home in 1985; five years later it would not buy a tube of toothpaste. Brazil had so many new banknotes they ran out of heroes to print on them.

In Vietnam in the 1980’s, factories had to hire trucks to carry the bags of dongs to pay the Tet (New Year) workers’ bonuses. In 1997 in Zaire, it took a brick-sized bundle of 500,000 notes of the local currency to pay for a meal – no one bothered to count them. On the Yugoslav border in 1989, tourists foolish enough to change “hard” currency for Yugoslav dinars got 14 cubic metres of dinars. “Dinars can no longer be measured in millions or billions, but only in cubic metres”. It had become a cubic currency. These grim records were eclipsed in November 2008, when Zimbabwe suffered inflation of 98% PER DAY.

Most governments are good at destruction – concentration camps, gulags, dictatorships, genocide, mob rule, world wars and . . . the destruction of sound money. Fiat money is their underhand method of official larceny and few people realise that robbery is happening until it is too late.

Future generations will look back in wonder at modern monetary madness. Words like peso, rouble, rupiah, baht, won, rouble, ringgit, inti, dinar, tolar, ostmark, dong, lira, zloty, cordoba, sole, cruziero, and yuan will join “shin-plaster” as descriptions of worthlessness. The Euro, Pound, Renminbi, Yen and Dollar are on the same slide to oblivion (the Australian dollar has lost over 90% of its purchasing power in the last 70 years).

“You Can’t Print Gold.”

Real money is always measurable by weight, such as pounds, grams, pennyweight and ounces of gold and silver, or carats of gemstones. It cannot be counterfeited or corrupted easily. But fiat money relies for its value on the honesty and openness of the rulers.

What is the cause of inflation and devaluations? It is simply loose monetary policy (watering the monetary milk). With the spread of democracy and more violent forms of mob rule, governments try to pretend they can satisfy the demands of the mob/electorate without taxing anyone. Today’s Covid cash splash is an extreme example.

Even a monetary fool such as Castro could see what caused Cuba’s inflation. In 1993 he stood up at a rally and declared: “There are nine billion too many pesos in Cuba”.

Dictators solve this problem by regular currency recalls. They declare yesterday’s shin-plaster worthless and issue a new lot, favouring their cronies, bankers and patrons. Eventually, none of their paper money is acceptable, even with legal tender backing, and barter or a foreign currency like the US dollar gains circulation.

Fiat money allows politicians to secretly steal your savings to fight yet another war on someone or something. Next we will see a war on “speculators”, or “hoarders” and calls for a world currency.

UN One-Worlders will not let this Covid crisis go to waste. They dream of one-world government (the “National Cabinet” writ large) with no circulating cash and mandatory use of Digital Money (Credit Card currency.) The Climate Alarmists would also like to use a digital money monopoly to promote their war on carbon. They could control and ration what we buy and consume – lettuce, tofu, bicycles and green energy only, with no overseas trips and no secret buying of diesel, bacon or beef.

We have already seen the start of their war on cash – Digital Money will join Mulberry Money, Shin Plaster and Cubic Currency in the long history of failed political money. While people are focussed on Social Distancing and Contact Tracking one-worlders are secretly planning to recall banknotes and abolish cash. Then they can ration the “money” available to each of us each month (cutting it off for white males once they reach their “Use by Date”?).

Does anyone believe the Euro would have survived World War II? Would the Islamic world or China accept a currency based largely on political promises of an enemy such as America? Only real money like gold, silver and barter goods are universally acceptable across all borders.

The Euro has been weakened by Brexit and the Climate Wars – it will not survive a real crisis. The Soviet Rouble block, established by force and maintained by official counterfeiting, could not survive withdrawal of the Red Army. And the Globo-dollar? Never.

Imagine the future of credit card electronic money when hackers or a neutron bomb destroys the electrons backing it. Or when the green energy grid collapses and the swipe-and-go terminals go blank? What will you use to buy food or petrol on the day after tomorrow?

To download this article with all images click:
https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mulberry-money.pdf

What is the solution?

Will Cash be the Biggest COVID Casualty?

We should oppose all sly moves to ban cash transactions in favour of the universal use of credit cards on the flimsy excuse that handling cash may spread the COVID virus. Don’t let our cash money become the biggest COVID casualty. Swapping paper money for a monopoly of electronic money is a bad deal.

And we should always be free to save our cash and protect the value of our savings by investing in real assets or sound money like gold and silver. No tin-pot dictator, when he fled, took his own currency. For many people in the world, a store of gold coins, silver coins, gem stones or a bit of productive land has allowed them to survive or escape when their government became too oppressive or lost a war, and the local fiat money became a cubic currency.

Viv Forbes
18 June 2020
Washpool   Qld   Australia 4306

====================

The biggest experiment in money creation ever

 The biggest experiment in money creation ever  By Peter Schiff, Via Zerohedge, 28 May 2020

 For years, I have been warning that during the age of permanent stimulus (which began in earnest with the Federal Reserve’s reaction to the dotcom crash of 2000), each successive economic contraction would have to be met with ever larger, increasingly ineffective, doses of monetary and fiscal stimulus to keep the economy from spiraling into depression. I have also said that the enormity of the asset price gains over the last 10 years had increased the danger because reflating the bloated stock, real estate, and public and private debt markets would bring on doses of stimulus that could prove lethal for the economy. But even though I expected that the next financial crisis would be catastrophic, I thought that it would come into the world in the usual way, as a credit crisis triggered by over-leverage. But the Coronavirus ripped up those stage notes, and instead ushered in a threat that is faster and deeper than I imagined, and I imagined a lot. It’s a perfect storm, a black swan with teeth.

Even in my most pessimistic assessments, I did not expect that so many seemingly distant sectors of the economy would simultaneously evaporate, almost overnight, or that government deficits would expand to nearly $4 trillion in the first wave of the crisis, or that the Federal Reserve would so suddenly launch its largest-ever experiment in quantitative easing, (with almost none of the forward guidance they have used to telegraph lesser moves), which would expand its balance sheet by more than $3 trillion in a matter of just a few months. Nor did I expect that at its outset the Fed’s new buying plan would include, for the first time, corporate bonds and high yield debt ETFs. (I thought those expansions would come eventually, not immediately.)

 

To make matters even worse, the crisis has struck in the midst of a presidential election year, which guarantees that every policy decision has been made through a political prism. Democrats are seizing on the crisis to paint the Trump Administration as incompetent, ineffective and uncaring, often twisting themselves into knots to do so. (Trump has done himself no favors by using his daily briefings to showcase his inconsistent policy positions, combative political style, and his tenuous grasp of medical concepts.) So, in contrast to prior national crises that had tended to pull the country together (think 9/11), this event is tearing us apart.

But there is one thing upon which both sides seem to agree: the need for the Federal government to shower the economy with newly created money, bail out everyone who can claim that the virus “was not their fault,” and to fully liquefy the financial markets. The result has been an increase in government spending that dwarfs everything we have ever seen in the past, including the government’s response to the 2008 financial crisis. The $3 trillion increase in Federal debt accumulated this spring may just be the beginning.

The major political differences now center on matters of degree, particularly how long the economy should remain closed and how many jobs, businesses, and family financial plans should be exchanged for each life that may be saved through extended lockdowns. This is where it gets ugly.

  • Most Democrats, claiming that they are solely motivated by a desire to save as many lives as possible, are pushing for extended lockdowns. But given the economic and scientific idiocy of their proposals (for instance, the failure to differentiate between relative risk levels across society), you can forgive those who conclude that they are at least partially interested in enacting the sorts of radical economic transformations that would have been impossible to push through in normal circumstances.
  • Republicans are leaning in the other direction, with many favoring the Swedish approach to the pandemic, which looks to quarantine the most vulnerable (the elderly and immuno-compromised) while seeking to build “herd immunity” among the majority of healthy citizens. This idea avoids lockdowns and social distancing (and tolerates elevated infection rates among the healthy) in order to suppress future infection waves, and more importantly, to prevent economic catastrophe.

Of course, the Swedish government, knowing that it alone would have to bear the cost of its decisions, did a rational cost/benefit analysis on its options. U.S. governors, who are relying on the Federal government to support the unemployed and to bail out state deficits, have been spared these hard choices. With costs shifted to the Federal government, states have underplayed economic considerations in their public health plans. No doubt many states have seized on the crisis as an opportunity to be bailed out of financial problems that predated the current crisis.

From his basement-based presidential campaign, Joe Biden has repeatedly asserted that trade-offs between safety and economic activity are a “false choice,” and that any policies that may just prevent “one more death” should be implemented, no matter the costs. Such claims are symptomatic of a politician who prefers cheap posturing to reality.

The insanity of this idea can be seen in California, a state under total control of the Democrats.

Despite a per capita death rate that is less than 30% of the national average, based on current data from Wolrldometer, the state seems to be prepared to commit economic suicide. In Los Angeles County, home to more than 10 million people as of 2018, the County Public Health Director just recommended that lockdown orders stay in place until August. On May 8 The Mercury News reported that California guidelines now dictate that counties remain closed until there are no COVID deaths, and no more than one new case per 10,000 residents, in the last 2 weeks. That bar is set so high that it seems designed never to be cleared.

Democrats’ preferred approach seems to be: Test everyone in the country for the disease, contact trace the tens of millions who are likely to test positive (even though that accomplishes nothing), lockdown until a vaccine is developed, and pass the costs on to the Federal Government. They seem to prefer this to a world in which Americans are empowered to make choices regarding their own health risks and economic imperatives. In so doing, some have equated calls for “liberty” with racism and greed.

Some of the government’s immediate responses have been laughably inept. Take the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which provides direct payments to workers who have lost jobs due to forced shutdowns. The problem is that the payments are often significantly higher than the former wages earned by many workers. That means that even when companies are allowed to open and rehire, many employees may not want to come back to work, at least not until their new unemployment checks run out. And based on the current drift in Washington and the stakes created by the election, there is a high likelihood that the generous payments will be renewed before the program expires in late summer. (Democrats want to extend the higher payments until January).

This is dangerous territory. As former Libertarian leader Harry Browne once said:

Government breaks your leg, and then hands you a crutch and says, “See, if it weren’t for us, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”

That is precisely what is happening here.

For countries that issue currencies that are not the world’s reserve (that is every country but the U.S.) the playbook is radically different. Down in the cheap seats, politicians are aware that the costs of trying to print your way out of a financial dead-end are likely to be higher than the temporary gain of immediate liquidity injections. Blatant “debt monetization,” whereby a government sells newly-created bonds to its central bank, usually ends in rampant, or even hyper, inflation, which wipes out the savings and the economic viability of the nation. But the dollar sits at the center of the global financial system, creating a built-in demand, as most cross-border transactions need dollars to execute. This advantage allows Washington to consider policy options that would be too risky for other countries.

And so while we can clearly see this new wave of debt forming on the horizon, few fear any real damage when it finally crashes onto shore. The fact that we have yet to pay a high price for our prior accumulation of debt, in terms of inflation and high interest rates, gives politicians and Wall Street cheerleaders room to suggest that there is no downside to the “government pays for everything” approach.

With this trump card tucked into our sleeve, the United States will now engage in the biggest experiment in money creation the world has ever seen. The hubris of American monetary exceptionalism may mean that no plan will be devised to steer us out of the dead-end of zero, or negative interest rates, no plan to confront our massive fiscal structural deficits, and no plan to create an economy that can survive without government life support.

But maybe the experiment in money creation can succeed in getting us through the COVID Depression without causing consumer prices to surge and cutting the legs out under the dollar? Maybe everything I have ever learned, or felt, about economics is wrong? Maybe money can grow on trees? I’m betting it can’t.

But this crisis will present different math than what we have seen over the last 20 years. We will be showering the country with money at a time when the supply of goods and services is diminishing due to work stoppages, production declines, distribution bottlenecks, and import restrictions.

Even if all restaurant and retail employees were to ignore the incentives and return to work, there is no certainty that customers will follow as fears of contagion will remain long after the economy reopens, and social distancing procedures will reduce the quality of the experience while increasing its cost. There are also no legal protections currently on the books to shield employers from lawsuits brought by workers or customers who may contract the virus on their premises. Under these circumstances, wide swaths of business sectors may just cease to be. In sum, there are many reasons to suspect that a very deep recession, or even a depression, will remain even after the disease subsides. All this means that the economic rebound may be much softer than expected.

So, we will have more money chasing fewer goods and services. This is a recipe for stagflation, whereby prices go up even while the economy contracts, creating a horrible economic situation for those at the bottom of the economic pyramid. Most dangerously, we see this happening now in the food supply, with meat processors and farmers facing difficulties in getting products to market. If you think social cohesion is breaking down now, wait until people have problems feeding their families.

When you get down to it, this crisis exposes just how deeply the decay of debt has undermined the economy. The forced shutdowns and social distancing would have been a serious blow to a very robust economy, but not likely fatal. In a healthy economy, individuals, businesses, and even governments, may have had the savings to draw on in case everything went wrong. Savings could have allowed us to freeze economic activity for a time, and survive to see it restart. But credit has become so cheap and so freely given in recent decades that the incentive to save has never been lower. Knowing that credit cards are handed out like lollipops, consumers have learned to live paycheck-to-paycheck. With interest rates near zero, small businesses have learned to rely on business lines of credit to pay current bills, and mega-cap corporations borrow to buy back shares, trading long-term stability for a short-term share price appreciation. In such an environment, any economic interruptions that constrain short-term revenues create an immediate crisis. Without the life support of savings, everyone immediately calls on the government to ride to the rescue. The problem is the politicians show up with the economic equivalent of pep pills and leeches.

So, we can see where this is going. Debt and monetary expansion look almost certain to increase. The dollar may eventually buckle under the weight, dragging the bond market down with it. It’s hard to say what the economy will look like once the bill comes due, but investors have plenty of warning. They should use the current period, where the dollar has yet to fall, to consider holdings that may provide real protection.

===================

18 Signs That We Are Facing A Record Breaking Economic Implosion In 2020

18 Signs That We Are Facing A Record Breaking Economic Implosion In 2020  By Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse, 7 May 2020

 In just six weeks, the entire global economy has completely come apart.  All over the world we are seeing numbers fall faster than we ever have before, and the outlook for the rest of the year is exceedingly bleak.  Fear of the coronavirus is going to paralyze global trade for the foreseeable future, and the lockdowns in some nations will last for many months to come.  Here in the United States, some states are attempting to make an effort to “reopen”, but in most instances that will involve “multiple stages”.  Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans have already lost their jobs, much of the population has already run through their meager savings, and financial institutions are becoming extremely tight with their money.  Even if COVID-19 disappeared tomorrow, our momentum would still take us into an economic depression, but of course this virus isn’t going to disappear any time soon.  After 9/11 our society evolved into an anti-terror state, and COVID-19 is going to permanently alter our society as well.  So anyone that was hoping for a quick “return to normal” can forget it, because “normal” is about to be completely redefined.

The pace at which economic conditions have deteriorated in recent weeks has been absolutely breathtaking, and the numbers just keep getting worse and worse.

The following are 18 signs that we are facing a record breaking economic implosion in 2020…

#1 According to economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal, the April jobs report will show that the unemployment rate in the United States is now above 16 percent.

#2 U.S. manufacturing orders just crashed by the most ever.

#3 U.S. gasoline consumption just dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

#4 Light vehicle sales in the U.S. just fell to the lowest level that we have seen since the early 1970s.

#5 The government program that was supposed to get small businesses through this crisis has been a tremendous failure

According to the CNBC/SurveyMonkey Small Business Survey released Monday, which surveyed 2,200 small business owners across America, while the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program was instituted to give them a lifeline through the coronavirus and economic shutdown, only 13% of the 45% who applied for the PPP were approved.

#6 The “coming meat shortages” are already here.  According to the New York Post, Costco is now rationing meat and Kroger is warning customers of very serious supply problems…

Costco on Monday said it will be limiting customers to just three packages of meat per shopper, while Kroger supermarkets posted an alert on the meat section of its website warning that it may have limited inventory “due to high demand.”

Grocers have been bracing for a run on meat in mid-May as major meat processing plants, including Tyson Foods, have been forced to shut down production. But the shortages appear to have come earlier than expected as consumers worried about the meat shortage have been stocking up, experts say.

#7 Global smartphone shipments were down 11.7 percent in the first quarter compared to a year ago.  That represents the fastest drop on record.

#8 Hong Kong just recorded the worst economic contraction in the city’s entire history.

#9 U.S. consumer spending was down 7.6 percent during the first quarter of 2020.

#10 American Airlines posted a loss of 2.2 billion dollars during the first quarter of 2020.

#11 It looks like retail giants Neiman Marcus, J. Crew and JC Penney are all headed for bankruptcy.Crisis and Leviathan: …

#12 Fox Business is reporting that Hertz is preparing to file for bankruptcy due to plunging car rental ridership.

#13 Gold’s Gym field for bankruptcy on Monday.

#14 Edmunds is projecting that auto sales in the United States this month will be down by more than half compared to April 2019.

#15 In Mexico, manufacturing activity is falling at the fastest pace ever recorded.  The following comes from Zero Hedge

While few have lofty expectations for economic performance with the global economy still largely shutdown, what is happening in Mexico is simply unprecedented. Here are some striking observations detailing the unprecedented economic collapse of the southern US neighbor, courtesy of Goldman.

Business confidence declined sharply in April (the seventh consecutive monthly decline) with the index now sitting deep within pessimist territory. The Manufacturing and Services PMIs also fell sharply in April, and are now at the lowest levels on record.

#16 More than 30 million Americans have already lost their jobs, and economists are projecting that millions more will lose their jobs in the weeks ahead.

#17 In March, U.S. home sales declined by double digit percentages in every region of the country.

#18 White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett is warning that U.S. GDP could fall by up to 30 percent during the second quarter of 2020.

For investors, the good news is that stock prices have bounced back quite a bit after the initial crash, and many market optimists are hoping that this Fed-fueled rally will keep on rolling.

But others are warning that this is a trap for bullish investors, and Kevin Smith is openly telling everyone that this could be the “last chance to sell” before another huge move downward…

The stock market may be flashing some ridiculously bullish signals, but hedge fund bear Kevin Smith is sticking by his prediction that the Dow and S&P 500 are on the verge of a Great Depression-level crash.

In fact, the Crescat Capital founder warns, this is your “last chance to sell” before the impending collapse.

We shall see what happens, but for the moment the financial markets are doing their best to try to defy economic reality.

Unfortunately, economic reality is hitting most Americans like a ton of bricks right now.  We are in the middle of the greatest spike in unemployment that the United States has ever seen by a very wide margin, and most of the jobs that have been lost are never coming back.

And as bad as things are already, the truth is that this is just the beginning.

A whole lot more pain is on the way, and it is going to shake our nation to the core.

Our economic and financial bubbles lasted far longer than they should have, but now fear of COVID-19 has burst them all, and it isn’t going to be possible to reinflate them this time around.

===================

Previous articles

Environmentalism: gravy trains, lies, hidden agendas and alarms such as 5G and gsms.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change  By Michael Shellenberger, The Australian, 1 July 2020

I have been a climate activist for 20 years but on behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created.

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by the US congress to provide ­objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”;

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”;

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;

Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003;

The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska;

The author’s new book.

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California;

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s;

The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level;

We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter;

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change;

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels;

Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.

I know the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those ­conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the Inter­national Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

Green beginnings

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to ­invest $US90bn into them. Over the past few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I ­referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a “crisis”.

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his ­research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “climate change kills children”.

Turning point

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilisations”. Mainstream journalists ­reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world”, and that deforestation was like a ­nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity ­extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence. And so my formal ­apology for our fearmongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.
  • The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.
  • 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent.
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent.
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.
  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions.
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.

Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the ­financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.

The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.

Reality bites

Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to ­believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

A real crisis

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people [Editor’s note 1: There is compelling evidence this figure is grossly inflated due to dubious practices and methods of measuring] and shattered economies around the globe [Editor’s note 2: It is the related governmental regulations that have ‘shattered economies around the world’, not COVID-19].

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.

The invitations from IPCC and congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists and ­environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely ­important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning ­author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science, Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love’: a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist and progressive felt the need to speak out against the alarmism. I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

Michael Shellenberger is president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organisation. He is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, published by Harper Collins

=======================

The Sun “Has Gone Into Lockdown”

The Sun Has Gone Into Lockdown  By Michael Snyder, 19 May 2020

The Sun “Has Gone Into Lockdown”, And This Strange Behavior Could Worsen Global Food Shortages

At a time when the world is already being hit with major crisis after major crisis, our sun is behaving in ways that we have never seen before.  For as long as records have been kept, the sun has never been quieter than it has been in 2019 and 2020, and as you will see below we are being warned that we have now entered “a very deep solar minimum”.  Unfortunately, other very deep solar minimums throughout history have corresponded with brutally cold temperatures and horrific global famines, and of course this new solar minimum comes at a time when the United Nations is already warning that we are on the verge of “biblical” famines around the world.  So we better hope that the sun wakes up soon, because the alternative is almost too horrifying to talk about.

Without the sun, life on Earth could not exist, and so the fact that it is behaving so weirdly right now should be big news.

Sadly, most mainstream news outlets are largely ignoring this story, but at least a few are covering it.  The following comes from Forbes

While we on Earth suffer from coronavirus, our star—the Sun—is having a lockdown all of its ownSpaceweather.com reports that already there have been 100 days in 2020 when our Sun has displayed zero sunspots.

That makes 2020 the second consecutive year of a record-setting low number of sunspots— which you can see (a complete absence of) here.

And here is what the New York Post is saying…

Our sun has gone into lockdown, which could cause freezing weather, earthquakes and famine, scientists say.

The sun is currently in a period of “solar minimum,” meaning activity on its surface has fallen dramatically.

Experts believe we are about to enter the deepest period of sunshine “recession” ever recorded as sunspots have virtually disappeared.

Yes, covering COVID-19 is important, but the fact that scientists are warning that we are potentially facing “freezing weather, earthquakes and famine” should be deeply alarming for all of us.

And since the mainstream media has been largely silent on this crisis, most Americans don’t even know that it exists.

Last year, there were no sunspots at all 77 percent of the time, and so far this year there have been no sunspots at all 76 percent of the time

“This is a sign that solar minimum is underway,” reads SpaceWeather.com. “So far this year, the Sun has been blank 76% of the time, a rate surpassed only once before in the Space Age. Last year, 2019, the Sun was blank 77% of the time. Two consecutive years of record-setting spotlessness adds up to a very deep solar minimum, indeed.”

So why is this such a big deal?

Well, every once in a while a very deep solar minimum that lasts for several decades comes along, and when our planet has experienced such periods in the past the consequences have been quite dramatic.

For example, the New York Post is claiming that NASA scientists fear that we could potentially be facing “a repeat of the Dalton Minimum”…

NASA scientists fear it could be a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, which happened between 1790 and 1830 — leading to periods of brutal cold, crop loss, famine and powerful volcanic eruptions.

Temperatures plummeted by up to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over 20 years, devastating the world’s food production.

Even worse would be a repeat of the Maunder Minimum which stretched from 1645 to 1715.  It came as the globe was already in the midst of “the Little Ice Age”, and it caused harvest failures and famines all over the globe

The Maunder Minimum is the most famous cold period of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures plummeted in Europe (Figs. 14.3–14.7), the growing season became shorter by more than a month, the number of snowy days increased from a few to 20–30, the ground froze to several feet, alpine glaciers advanced all over the world, glaciers in the Swiss Alps encroached on farms and buried villages, tree-lines in the Alps dropped, sea ports were blocked by sea ice that surrounded Iceland and Holland for about 20 miles, wine grape harvests diminished, and cereal grain harvests failed, leading to mass famines (Fagan, 2007). The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over during the winter (Fig. 14.3). The population of Iceland decreased by about half. In parts of China, warm-weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.

Of course this would be an exceptionally bad time for such a cataclysmic climate shift, because African Swine Fever has already wiped out approximately one-fourth of all the pigs in the world, colossal armies of locusts the size of major cities are systematically wiping out crops across much of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, and fear of COVID-19 is greatly disrupting global food supply chains.

In fact, it is being reported that widespread shutdowns of meat processing facilities in the United States may force farmers to euthanize “as many as 10 million hogs by September”

U.S. pork farmers may be forced to euthanize as many as 10 million hogs by September as a result of production-plant shutdowns brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, according to the National Pork Producers Council.

At least 14,000 reported positive COVID-19 cases have been connected to meatpacking facilities in at least 181 plants in 31 states as of May 13, and at least 54 meatpacking facility workers have died of the virus at 30 plants in 18 states, according to an investigation by the Midwest Center for Investigative reporting.

Even if the sun suddenly started acting perfectly normal once again, we would still be facing what the UN is calling “the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two”.

Global food supplies are getting tighter with each passing day, and many are warning that some areas of the globe will soon be dealing with severe food shortages.

What we really need are a few years of really good growing weather, but the behaviour of the sun may not make that possible.

So let’s keep a very close eye on the giant ball of fire that we are revolving around, because if it remains very quiet that could mean big trouble for all of us.

====================

Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G

Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G  By Michael Alexander, Natural News, 20 February 2020

Telecommunications companies will not be rolling out 5G towers in several Swiss cantons or regions after the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment or Das Bundesamt für Umwelt (Bafu) placed an indefinite moratorium on the network’s use over potential health concerns.

In its moratorium, Bafu said it cannot yet provide universal criteria without further testing of the impact of 5G radiation on human health.

According to the agency, the moratorium will stay in place as they examine and monitor extensively the effects of 5G exposure through adaptive antennas in “real-world operational conditions,” adding that “this work will take some time”.

International newspaper The Financial Times first broke the story.

However, according to a statement sent by a representative to Mobile World Live, Bafu said that these letters did not contain any recommendation to stop the permitting of 5G base stations, but rather, only sets out how the country’s cantons can proceed with the permitting of 5G and adaptive antennas until enforcement aid on the structures is available.

In the same statement, the Bafu representative noted that several cantons and municipalities had already imposed moratoria on 5G, but added that these do “not affect Switzerland in general”.

Among the cantons that voluntarily imposed moratoria on 5G towers because of uncertainty over health risks are Geneva, Vaud, Jura and Neuchâtel.

The apprehension regarding the new 5G communication technology — which proponents say will eventually be used to support everything from driverless cars to even virtual reality — stems from the fact that individuals will be exposed to more concentrated radiation beams.

Swisscom, the country’s largest mobile operator, maintains that while it understands “the fears often expressed about new technologies,” there is no evidence that 5G radiation affects human health.

Despite Swisscom’s statement, however, the Swiss Medical Association still advised caution on 5G, noting that there are still unanswered questions regarding the technology’s potential to cause damage.

Medical journal The Lancet has published a report questioning the validity of current safety standards, which are based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers first established in the 1990s. As noted in the Lancet report, these standards assume that only the acute thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation are hazardous.

In her report, however, author Priyanka Bandara points to research suggesting the damage goes beyond these thermal effects, noting that radiation might alter human brain metabolism, electrical activity in the brain and immune responses. Bandara, in the Lancet report, also added that chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage and cancer risk.

Additionally, Bandara said, there appears to be evidence for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices. Prenatal exposure might cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behavior.

Similarly, a group of scientists and researchers has also aired concern over the impending global rollout of 5G, noting that electromagnetic fields or EMF have well-documented negative effects on the not just on the human body, but also the environment. (Related: 5G Danger: Hundreds of respected scientists sound the alarm about health effects as 5G networks go up nationwide)

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life,” the group, led by Elizabeth Kelley of Electromagnetic Safety Alliance Inc., said.

Aside from the recently imposed moratorium, there are currently five proposals for legally binding referendums on 5G use that are in motion in Switzerland. Two of these have already been formalized and now only need to collect 100,000 signatures in order to get onto the official ballot.

The first of the two proposals aims to make telecommunications companies legally liable for any subsequent claims of damage caused by radiation, while the second one proposes strict and stringent limits on radiation emissions, as well as gives local residents the power to veto new antenna and mast constructions in their respective areas.

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

MobileWorldLive.com

LiveScience.com

TheLancet.com

ScientificAmerican.com

====================

Links to previous articles

Book reviews – ‘They’re conning you!’ first.

This post comprises reviews books that add substantially to the understanding of our world, economics, politics, history and geopolitics, and what may happen in the future.  Scroll down to read all reviews.

  • They’re Conning You! By Peter Senior. Note: the book can now be downloaded as a PDF document until the updated version is available: They’re Conning You!
  • Full review at: David Icke’s Everything You Need To Know But Have Never Been Told
  • JFK and the Unspeakable. Why He Died and Why It Matters  Book review by Edward Curtin, 31 October 2017
  • The Cosmic War, by Dr Joseph P Farrell
  • Phantom Self, by David Icke
  • 1984 – Nineteen Eighty Four. George Orwell’s 1950 classic
  • Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • The Death of Money, James Rickards  
  • American Betrayal, Diana West
  • From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew
  • Lee Kuan Yew by Graham Allison

They’re Conning You! 

Who are ‘they’? And what are ‘they’ planning? This is the REAL story of our past, present and possibly future.

They’re Conning You! By Peter Senior, Senior Consulting

Note: the book can now be downloaded as a PDF document until the updated version is available: They’re Conning You!

They’re Conning You! is only available on Amazon Kindle because it includes hundreds of vital Internet links that would be far too tiresome to type in from a paper book.

They’re Conning You! presents information that is likely to cause ‘cognitive dissonance’ as it examines in depth a wide range of evidence that demonstrates much of what thought we knew is, in fact, wrong. The subjects discussed cover a wide spectrum from aliens and UFOs to asking where the technologies used to construct ancient structures come from, whether ancient civilisations waged nuclear wars against each other, to financial treason.

‘Consciousness’ is examined, as is what are we made of and how did this come about? Could it be that aliens modified our DNA, which may have come from the outer Cosmos anyway?

We are accustomed to overt and covert PC education, indoctrination and media ‘fake news,’ but do we realise how this is turning us into zombies? Servants of the State? Many scientific bodies, government departments and corporations often distort and lie about what is assumed to be ‘science.’ Even nastier things are being exposed such as paedophilia and Satanism.

Some ‘deep state’ government departments with-hold information that would enable free energy and the consequent massive improvement to most peoples’ lives and countries’ economies in order to protect their secrets as well as the massive oil and associated industries valued at $500 trillion.

There is compelling evidence that US President John F Kennedy was assassinated by covert government people because he planned to share US’ knowledge of aliens and UFOs with Russian President Khrushchev, as well as expose massive corruption.

The book presents frightening information about the two events that changed our world most in the last 55 years: JFK’s assassination and ‘911’, the demolition of the Twin Towers and Tower 7 on 11 September 2001 by covert government-controlled actions.

The subject of who ‘they’ are is discussed in depth, in particular with regard to plans for a New World Order (NWO), and who is orchestrating this.

The US is mimicking the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, whilst Europe is gradually transitioning into a bureaucratic dictatorship. The world’s financial systems are being manipulated for the benefit of their controllers, all underpinned by the ‘deep state’ which has been shown to have syphoned off at least $21 trillion through covert Pentagon misappropriations. Globalisation has expanded trade around the world, but it is now being manipulated by global corporations.

Compelling evidence demonstrates the US and other ‘deep state’ governments have secret space programs that have grown since the first UFO sightings and capture during and shortly after WWII. Imagine what 70 years of ‘reverse engineering’ from captured UFOs would yield, together with alien contact?

Several potential future scenarios are presented with assessments of each. Readers are invited to decide which seems more likely based on what they now know after reading this book and, hopefully, carrying out much more in-depth research.

A review of They’re conning you! by highly-regarded executive journalist Julian Tomlinson, based on 24 years’ experience, notes:
‘This book will appeal to the firm believers in so-called “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy facts”, as well as those with a curiosity and even the firm non-believers. The author combines painstaking research from innumerable sources and combines bland shreds of information into a compelling narrative. Readers will feel they are sitting there actually talking to the author as he manages to convey a sense of wonder, concern and excitement in every sentence, effortlessly flicking between known pre-history, the Roman period and modern times in a manner that’s easy to follow.
If you are in the “conspiracy camp” this book expertly summarises everything you do know and want to know into one, easy-to-read volume. If you are not in the camp, you’ll at least gain an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of “conspiracies” and why they exist. You may even start to believe. Well worth a look.’

They’re conning you! is available from Amazon Kindle: www.amazon.com – search for: they’re conning you

Seven further reviews by Indie Book Reviewers are highly complimentary, and recommend the book should be read by everyone:

  1. This is a powerful, very well-written and highly informative book! I have read several books on different types of hidden ‘truths’ and conspiracy theories… what is really going on in our world and what the future might hold, and sometimes I get the sense that most are just recycling old information or things we’ve all already heard before. For this book it seems like I read a lot of new ideas presented in a way that makes a great deal of sense, even if might be perceived as somewhat “controversial”. The content was mostly new to me and laid out in a coherent way that is easy to follow, but is meticulously researched and supported with solid evidence. Peter Senior uses facts and present-day conditions as well as real-life examples to share his perspectives and ideas, Fast paced, informative, and easy to read, I recommend this book, “They’re Conning You!” to everyone who wants to know what is really going on, from aliens to secret societies, shadow governments and 9/11 and so much more.  (5 stars) John Goldman– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  2. Peter Senior has a great ability to take complex ideas, concepts and put them in the simplest terms for all to understand easily. He covers many different points of society – past, present and future—and holds nothing back in the way of exposing information that many people might not be aware of. The media and governments do a great job of distorting reality and manipulating truths so that the average person has no idea what is really happening. Mr. Senior has compiled so much interesting research and documentation on a variety of hot-button topics and gives straightforward, convincing arguments that demand to be heard and studied further. Nicely crafted and I liked how it was formatted/broken down into individual chapters that focused on different elements. Made for easier reading and retention. Near flawless editing (formatting is a little wonky at times) and I walked away feeling like I really learned something from reading this book and am inspired to do more reading and research on my own. (4 stars) Leo Gregory– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  3. Funny how few books there actually seem to be on so many of these topics… and this is such important information! I am still in college and it’s just not normally the type of book that I gravitate to for ‘fun’, but I thought there might be something useful I could learn anyways and I was so right! It is eye-opening and very compelling – it is clear that the author knows what he’s writing about and has done in-depth research (and has detailed and comprehensive appendices at the end to prove it). Provocative and bold, this book is not just for academics or scientists or political gurus, but for anyone who wants to know what is REALLY going on ‘behind the scenes’ and how different it is from what “they” are telling you. Everything from the JFK assassination to Twin Towers to Extra-Terrestrials, Antarctica and “Deep State” governments… Peter Senior has created an impressively comprehensive body of research and theories that can definitely get people’s attention, whether you are a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘believer’. I could definitely see the truths behind much of what he was saying. The main concern I had was that while he presented lots of great information and shocking revelations, I was left with the feeling of like “okay, now what am I supposed to do with this info?” So in that regard it is a little frustrating, but I guess it is better to know than to not know. I like that it challenged the traditional narrative and put things into new perspective. (4 stars) James Masters– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  4. I wasn’t sure what to expect when reading “They’re Conning You” by Peter Senior, as I’m not normally one to read about things like this. But surprisingly enough I found the straight-forward and engaging narrative style to be quite fascinating and down-to-earth. I liked how Mr. Senior uses his vast and well-researched knowledge ‘story-style’ to make his points and relate his ideas in ways that we all can fully and easily grasp. Each chapter/section/topic gives valuable information, examples and supporting links or sources for further research/reading. The whole thing just flowed so well and I hope people pay attention to as it is clear that the author knows what he is talking about, and that he is an excellent writer. I have found that many times reading philosophy/political or ‘conspiracy’ theory books can either be too ‘highbrow’ and esoteric, or they just don’t present the material in a way that I feel I can relate to (or its condescending), but this definitely was not the case here at all. My only very small complaint was that I wish there were more in-text citations for sources (footnotes or direct links), because while the author does provide a very thorough appendices/references at the end, there were a few times I would’ve preferred to see the sources cited in text. A very minor thing, though. Recommended read. (4 stars) Cale Owens– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  5. I think a lot of these types of books get a bad rap sometimes, as a lot of times they are all theory and ‘talking in circles’ but don’t really bring anything ‘new’ to the table or make the information credible and or relevant. But I have to say in this case I feel like the author did a solid job of getting his message out and doing so in a very digestible manner. I was unaware of so many things discussed in this book, and I consider myself to be fairly well educated and worldly. I’m not exactly sure who the right target audience for this would be, as it almost seems something almost anyone could (and should!) read. I admit I am not all that sure what to do with this information, but if nothing else I enjoyed learning more about certain things I was unaware of before, and I have ALWAYS had an interest in knowing more truths with aliens/ET and their contributions to our planet and advancing civilizations. The pacing is pretty even and overall it is an impressive effort by Mr. Senior and worth serious thought and discussion. (4 stars) Carla Biggins– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  6. In “They’re Conning You…” Peter Senior lays out his ideas is a way that encourages the reader to think ‘outside the box’ and question the ‘reality’ that is often presented to the masses. Whether you believe in conspiracy theories or facts or not, there is enough detailed examination of ‘controversial’ subjects here to entice the pickiest of readers. His narrative is easy to follow, even if some of the concepts were admittedly a little ‘out there’ at times. I still feel like I gleaned some valuable information – actually a lot that I didn’t know before. While not exactly a ‘mainstream’ sort of book, in a way that is exactly what makes it so good –This book is intelligent and thought-provoking – opens your eyes and provides a necessary paradigm shift. Some parts pull the rug out from under you – others will pull the wool from your eyes and expose truths, sometimes uncomfortable, that we all need to at least hear about, even if you chose not to believe it.  At least you can decide for yourself when given the bigger picture. I liked how many outside sources he references, so many links, videos, articles and books… I will definitely be reading more! Recommend. (4 stars) Cody Brighton – Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  7. Warning – when starting “They’re Conning You…” make sure you don’t have anywhere you need to be or anything you need to do because you won’t want to stop reading until you’ve finished it all!! Trust me on this! The book starts off with an intriguing beginning pulling us into this provocative world and ideas, and just keeps going with one interesting topic after the next. I think what I liked the most about this book was just the overall feel the author Peter Senior managed to create where it felt intimate, like a friend is telling me this really cool, strange story that I didn’t want to stop listening to. Loved the energetic tone and the fact that he has his opinions, but the book doesn’t feel overly ‘biased’ or judgmental… This went much deeper than that, and I was truly impressed with the author’s literary and research skills. I actually feel like I learned a lot, all while being ‘entertained’. I’ve always had a fascination with many of these subjects (esp. aliens and secret societies), but they are usually presented in such an eye-rolling, unbelievable way It was great to read something so intelligently constructed with impressive research and complex connections that all come full circle. Suitable for mature teens on up. (5 stars) Essie Harmon—Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers

================

The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy – Updated version 

Note: this review is  copied from the Amazon/Kindle website.

Now in a new edition updated through the unprecedented 2016 presidential election, this provocative book makes a compelling case for a hidden “deep state” that influences and often opposes official U.S. policies. Prominent political analyst Peter Dale Scott begins by tracing America’s increasing militarization, restrictions on constitutional rights, and income disparity since World War II. With the start of the Cold War, he argues, the U.S. government changed immensely in both function and scope, from protecting and nurturing a relatively isolated country to assuming ever-greater responsibility for controlling world politics in the name of freedom and democracy. This has resulted in both secretive new institutions and a slow but radical change in the American state itself. He argues that central to this historic reversal were seismic national events, ranging from the assassination of President Kennedy to 9/11.
Scott marshals compelling evidence that the deep state is now partly institutionalized in non-accountable intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA, but it also extends its reach to private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton and SAIC, to which 70 percent of intelligence budgets are outsourced. Behind these public and private institutions is the influence of Wall Street bankers and lawyers, allied with international oil companies beyond the reach of domestic law. Undoubtedly the political consensus about America’s global role has evolved, but if we want to restore the country’s traditional constitutional framework, it is important to see the role of particular cabals—such as the Project for the New American Century—and how they have repeatedly used the secret powers and network of Continuity of Government (COG) planning to implement change. Yet the author sees the deep state polarized between an establishment and a counter-establishment in a chaotic situation that may actually prove more hopeful for U.S. democracy.

================

Everything You Need to Know,  by David Icke, 14 February 2018

See full review at: David Icke’s Everything You Need To Know But Have Never Been Told

David’s latest book is reviewed in a recent post by Freedom Article, as follows: ‘This book sprinkled throughout with David’s humor, e.g. when discussing transhumanism poster boy Ray Kurzweil of Google, David remarks “I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the date in a calendar factory” or when discussing the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist (eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ), David remarks that mainstream religion is “Satanism lite.”

Here are 2 key quotes from the book:

“If you want to control the dream you must control the perceptions of the dreamer and that’s the global conspiracy to enslave humanity in a single sentence.”

David uses the same quote from Einstein twice in the book, since it’s so important:

“Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can’t help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.”

Therein lies the grand solution. The solution to all these problems, to the entire New World Order, comes down to some very simple principles. Remember who you are. Identify with the depth of your spirit, not the shallowness of your form. Life is a mirror: whatever you put out, you receive. Change your perception and your change everything. The universe matches your vibration with an experience or situation, so if you change your vibration, you change your experience, and your entire life. If enough of us do it, we change the entire world.

Everything You Need To Know But Have Never Been Told is the kind of book that can change your life. Get a copy, read it, let it inspire you with knowledge and courage, and let the astonishing amount of dot-connecting sink in and give you a perceptual reboot.’

================

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

 JFK and the Unspeakable. Why He Died and Why It Matters  Book review by Edward Curtin, 31 October 2017

Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Simon & Schuster, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.

It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behaviour has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” – not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.

Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA. Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.

We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.” [1]

Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.

First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.

Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end – never told the President. [2] The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”

Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”

He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”

Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[3]

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.

These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.

But who killed him?

Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.

He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.

Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination – that plus the thought that it no longer matters.

It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.

There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters. As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?” After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife – during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union – he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department. He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba. Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide. Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.

During this time up until the assassination Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Bannister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin.” Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.

From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.

Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up – clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.

He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”

Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.

[1] http://consortiumnews.com/print’2009/091309a.html [This link appears to be too old to still work. Unlike the print age, the digital age loses references, another way that memory and history are stolen.]

[2] Vernon Loeb, “Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack,” Washington Post, April 29, 2000

[3] See James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November 2003

Edward Curtin teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts

====================

The Cosmic War, by Dr Joseph P Farrell

A review from Amazon of this extraordinary and compelling  ‘must read’ book, The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics, and Ancient Texts: A Study in Non-Catastrophist Interpretations of Ancient Legends, Author Dr Joseph P Farrell.

Farrell’s foray into ancient antiquity is scholarly in it’s precision and thought-provoking in its ramifications.  Oxford educated researcher Dr. Joseph P. Farrell unleashes a reverberating hypothesis regarding ancient history whose echoes will be forever heard.

Cosmic War is an extremely intriguing incursion into the possibility of a very ancient war in high antiquity. Dr. Farrell’s hypotheses of an Ancient Interplanetary War is argued in an in-depth, precise and reasonable approach. The extensive evidence Farrell collates and synthesizes will leave the reader aghast with the possibilities.

Intriguingly, many ancient cultures stated that the ‘Wars of the Gods’ were quite real. Predictably, even though there’s extensive evidence for advanced physics, advanced weapons, ancient [millions and BILLIONS of year old artifacts found by reputable sources], the establishment has painted all over ancient history with myth.

Regarding this very issue, Jim Marrs in his book Our Occulted History, sets his cross hairs on this very issue: “The term mythology stems from the Greek word mythos, simply meaning words or stories reflecting the basic values and attitudes of people. In past ages, when the vast majority of humans were illiterate, easily understood parables were used to educate people about history, science, and technology. During the Dark Ages, when most of people were taught that the Earth was flat, the word mythology was changed by the Roman Church to mean imaginative and fanciful tales veering far from truthfulness. This small change in semantics has caused untold damage in current perceptions.”

Ironically enough, there is starting to be more and more evidence of ‘myths’ now turning out to be fact. As Chris Hardy Ph.D remarks in her poignant book DNA Of The Gods: “…let’s remember that, before the discoveries of loads of ancient tablets written in the pictographic Sumerian language (Late Uruk period, fourth millennium BCE), the kingdom of Sumer was believed to be a myth. We had already discovered Akkad and deciphered Akkadian, and still archaeologists wouldn’t give credence to the numerous carved references, within historical dated records, to a line of kings whose title was “King of Sumer and Akkad”.

Or how about the “myth” of Troy: “This myth collapsed in 1865 with archeologist Frank Calvet’s discovery of the historic ruins of not only one city of Troy but nine layers of it! The city, whose siege is recounted in Homer’s Iliad, is only Troy VII, the seventh level underground, dating to the thirteenth century BCE.”

The gatekeepers, for many reasons, want to keep established history in a nice little box. Fortunately, as anyone who has extensively research these topics know, there’s more than ample evidence that shows that at minimum history isn’t what we have been told.

In any case, Cosmic War covers wide ranging but pertinent topics such as Van Flandern’s exploded planet hypothesis, an analysis of plasma in relation to weapons that employ scalar physics, petroglyphs which show plasma instability glyphs that were recorded by ancient cultures, remnants of giants in ancient history, optical phase conjugation, the story of the ‘gods’ as related through ancient texts, pulsars, generational charts of the ‘gods’, the scarring of The Valles Mariners being possibly from a weapon, Iapetus and its hexagonal craters, and a LOT more.

The ramifications of this book abound, and filter in all aspects of our lives. Dr. Farrell gives compelling reasons [coupled with countless others in his other trenchant books] as to why we need to give history, particularly ancient history, a very long and thorough look.

In its totality, this book is a veritable fountain of information that is scholarly in precision, and thought-provoking in its ramifications. This book is a must read for anyone interested in ancient history, ancient civilizations, and any of the topics there-in. There is more than enough information to make the reader curious about our past in more ways than they can really imagine.

========================

David Icke’s “Phantom Self”: A Book Review from Freedom Articles

david-ickes-phantom-self-a-book-review-from-freedom-articles

Phantom Self, the latest book of researcher David Icke, takes conspiracy research to a new depth with the idea of a primal virus that has hacked Life itself.

(Editor’s note: this book is amongst the most fascinating, timely and thought-provoking books I’ve ever read.  I strongly recommend setting aside all prejudice and past learning – what we were taught, and so believed – then reading it with an open mind. And then thinking deeply.)

Phantom Self is the latest book of famous researcher and free-thinker David Icke. Just as in his previous book The Perception Deception, David takes his research to a new level of depth with a comprehensive display of dot-connecting that will leave many in awe of his knowledge – but more importantly awaken people to the real dire straits humanity is in. Like many of his books, it ends with a positive message and the ultimate solution to all of humanity’s problems; however, most of the book is devoted to exposing the current reality of planet Earth, often in horrifying detail. This is an essential part of David’s message, for without the true knowledge of what is really going on – and the capacity to feel the horror of it – we will not muster the courage and motivation to change it. Part of the reason humanity is so stuck deep in the conspiracy is that it is engaged in massive collective denial, which it prevents it from acting decisively to quash and transform the evil (or unconsciousness as I prefer to call it). A hallmark of Phantom Self is that it takes a step further down the rabbit hole – past the reptilians and Archons – and looks at the controlling force behind them, which David says resembles some kind of computer virus that has hacked life itself.

The full review can be seen at david-ickes-phantom-self-a-book-review-from-freedom-articles

========================

1984 – Nineteen Eighty Four

George Orwell’s classic 1950 novel is very worthwhile reading (again for most people).  It is frightening to review how much of what Orwell wrote is happening today, albeit is somewhat different guise.  Recall Orwell was a member of the Fabian Society, where he learnt of their plans before resigning.  He used novels as a practical was to publicise the plans he learn about from other Fabian members.  The Amazon website – – explains much about the book, and presents several perceptive reviews – this is one of the 4,613:

George Orwell’s classic was incredibly visionary. It is hardly fathomable that this book was written in 1948. Things that we take for granted today – cameras everywhere we go, phones being tapped, bodies being scanned for weapons remotely – all of these things were described in graphic detail in Orwell’s book.
Now that we have the Internet and people spying on other people w/ webcams and people purposely setting up their own webcams to let others “anonymously” watch them, you can see how this culture can develop into the Orwellian future described in “1984.”
If you’ve heard such phrases as “Big Brother,” “Newspeak,” and “thought crime” and wondered where these phrases came from, they came from this incredible, vivid and disturbing book.
Winston Smith, the main character of the book is a vibrant, thinking man hiding within the plain mindless behavior he has to go through each day to not be considered a thought criminal. Everything is politically correct, children defy their parents (and are encouraged by the government to do so) and everyone pays constant allegiance to “Big Brother” – the government that watches everyone and knows what everyone is doing at all times – watching you shower, watching you having sex, watching you eat, watching you go to the bathroom and ultimately watching you die.
This is a must-read for everyone.

=====================

Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

Author: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, was raised Muslim, and spent her childhood and young adulthood in Africa and Saudi Arabia. In 1992, Hirsi Ali came to the Netherlands as a refugee. She earned her college degree in political science and worked for the Dutch Labor party. She denounced Islam after the September 11 terrorist attacks and now serves as a Dutch parliamentarian, fighting for the rights of Muslim women in Europe, the enlightenment of Islam, and security in the West.

Editor’s note: this book should be considered essential reading by anyone who has an interest in Islam as well as everyone who is or may be effected by Muslims (that means just about everyone!).  The book is very comprehensive and, unlike most other books on the subject, provides not only a wide-ranging background and analyses based on her own experience, but some thought-provoking solutions.  After scanning numerous reviews of this excellent book, the following written by ‘Helpful Advice’ on Amazon is more or less  what I would have written.

After ‘Infidel’ and ‘Nomad’ worldwide known, equally hated and adored Ayaan Hirsi Ali is back on literary (and considering the topic inevitably political) scene with her new and probably the most controversial book so far she wrote – ‘Heretic’.

A book that will certainly be subject of numerous texts, quoted or despised, she raised the question of some key Islam teachings incompatibility with the values of modern or free society for which the majority (or at least we think so maybe) people in the world stands for.

It seemed that comparing to some other major religions, Islam somehow proved immune to changes in the new world we are living, characterized by enormous speed of information exchange and the development of human rights. There were some attempts such as Arab Spring that tried to challenge traditional thinking, ingrained prejudices or facts about the Muslim world. But with the simultaneous proliferation of Islamic fundamentalism and even its acceptance in certain circles of the population in the West, according to the author it seems that it is time for some radical actions that must be implemented by the very Muslims, not someone else from outside.

So, what Ali proposes needs to happen for Muslims to defeat the extremists for good? Economic, political, judicial and military tools have already been proposed, some of them deployed, though it seems that all these will have little effect unless Islam itself is reformed.

Therefore she calls for a Muslim Reformation—a revision of Islamic teachings, alignment of modern society with traditional religion doctrine, that seems difficult, but not unfeasible due to the rejection of extremist behavior among the majority of Muslims around the world.

She reminds that such reformation has been called for since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent abolition of the caliphate, but instead of general phrases and generalized objectives she precisely pointed out five key precepts that have made Islam resistant to historical change and adaptation. And only when the harmfulness of these ideas will be recognized and as result they will be rejected, a true Muslim Reformation would be possible.

Although to comment each of them would require writing essays, I’ll just list all five of them:
• Removing of Muhammad’s semi-divine status, putting him into the history context as important figure that united the Arabs in a pre-modern time that cannot be copied in the 21st century. And consequently also recognizing the fact that Quran is the book made by human hands.
• Emphasizing that life is more important than something that comes after it will reduce the appeal of martyrdom.
• Appreciation of modern laws that need to be put in front of Shariah legislation that is violent, intolerant or anachronistic.
• The abolition of the individual’s right and so called religious police to enforce the law, something for Muslim community is unfortunately particularly known
• And most important, Islam must become a religion of peace removing the imperative to wage holy wars against infidels

Once again this author must be admitted undeniable courage to tackle the dangerous subjects in a world where because of the drawn cartoons you can easily lose a life. Her theses are clear, her objectives are fully explained, her mission to change the Islamic world from the inside continues, causing the happiness and satisfaction of all civilized Muslims worldwide.

Therefore high recommendations for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, this brave author who after fighting for the rights of women engages into even greater battle with the hope that one day we will be able to say that books like these changed the world. For the better.

===============================

The Death of Money

The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System.  8 April 2014.  By James Rickards.

James Rickards, author of the other best seller, Currency Wars, has gone even further in The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System, in telling it like it is (and will be, so prepare yourself!). Jim’s all-facts, straightforward approach is peppered with just enough analogy and anecdotal wit to make sophisticated economic/mathematical/political concepts understandable to the (educated) layperson. His clarification techniques serve the book well by making sure the content never gets watered down or condescending. For anyone interested in knowing what is going on behind the scenes, how the dollar is being systematically devalued by The Fed (and why), what a rigged sham our banking system is, and how things are likely to play out in the very near future, read The Death of Money!

American Betrayal

The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West (May 28, 2013).  Diana West’s newest book “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on our Nations Character” is a highly researched, blockbuster of a story taking 356 pages to tell with 29 pages of notes.  Whilst not directly about ‘management’, this book is packed with information that any successful manager should understand, in particular regarding communications (propaganda?)  and planning.  It’s the most thought-provoking, worrying, disillusioning book I’ve ever read.  I’ve attached a couple of reviews of the book from Amazon.com. American Betrayal, Diana West, May 2013. Reviews  that give you a glimpse of what it’s about.  John, of John’s Newsletter fame, noted: ‘American Betrayal explains what many already know about the creation of the soviet monster by the FDR administration, stacked with communist spies and the author of the cold war from as early as 1942.  How FDR’s lackeys could give the USSR the atomic bomb via Lend Lease is fascinating and unfortunately true.  It is clear that powerhouse though she may be, America has been ungovernable since the outset…Just too big, too complex and too full of leaks and confused ideologies.  America is now, as a reaction, on the road to becoming a police state.  Folk who have read the book  called “The Open Society and Its Enemies” by Karl Popper will understand how the USA came to this pretty pickle and the realities behind this scandalous state of affairs.  Horrific though her anecdotes are, I have seen independent corroboration elsewhere of Diana’s central themes and accept them as factual – when asserted as such.  This book is too disturbing for general consumption.’

From Third World to First

The Singapore Story: 1965-2000 by Lee Kuan Yew  (Oct 3, 2000).  Note:  although older, it is useful to read this book before the Grand Master’s Insights book, below. Some comments on the Amazon website: Lee Kwan Yew had a clear vision, set himself clear goals…. Above all, what led to his success is his execution skills…. Although Singapore is a free market economy, its philosophy concerning workers and employees are caring and genuine, unlike in the United States….His views regarding leadership and a wide range of management issues are profound….. Read this book to be inspired.

Lee Kuan Yew

The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World by Graham Allison et al., 1 Feb. 2013.  Some comments on the Amazon website: Lee excels in pithy evaluations of regional and national strengths and weaknesses. At his best, the man is a cross between Confucius and Machiavelli. (Washington Times)……..”I found myself engrossed this week by the calm, incisive wisdom of one of the few living statesmen in the world who can actually be called visionary. The wisdom is in a book, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States and the World,” a gathering of Mr. Lee’s interviews, speeches and writings…He is now 89, a great friend of America, and his comments on the U.S. are pertinent to many of the debates in which we’re enmeshed.” — Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal.

Research on Cognitive Decline and Alzheimer’s Disease

This post presents  the results of initial research into the possibilities of delaying or reversing the onset of cognitive decline that often leads onto Alzheimer’s and other dementia conditions.

If you have any comments that will enhance this initial research before conclusions are formed, please email them to petersenior42@gmail.com.

The initial research paper can be downloaded from Research on cognitive decline and Alzheimers, update, 200328

By Peter Senior, 7 May 2020

The objective: find out whether or not cognitive decline (CD), Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and related effects can be slowed, reversed and/or prevented.

Hypothesis: the standard medical view that CD and AD can at best be partly alleviated and that the is no way to reverse it may be false, depending on the individual.

This paper comprises an initial list of key overall findings followed by a chronological list of specific findings that appear to be significant.

The most promising finding to date is Dr Dale Bredesen’s protocol; the first listed, together with several details of Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE protocol. A 52-minute video interview with Dr Bredesen, 4 September 2019, provides a comprehensive introduction, including his comment: “We’ve never seen a case of cognitive decline where there are less than 10 primary causes.”  https://www.beingpatient.com/dale-bredesen-lifestyle-changes-prevent-alzheimers/. Several other areas of research show considerable promise.

 Key findings to date

  1. There is ample compelling evidence that CD and AD can, in certain individual situations, at least be delayed, and sometimes reversed, by applying appropriate remedial actions.
  2. Dr Bredesen’s protocol and life-style proposals demonstrate the most comprehensive and promising approach.
  3. The sooner diagnosis and appropriate remedial actions are started, the sooner positive results will be achieved.
  4. Some of the largest organisations, including government and medical bodies, are the least optimistic, indicating little can be done to improve CD and AD. There is at least a suspicion that major organisations, including ‘Big Pharma’, are primarily interested in a single ‘magic pill’ that will greatly enhance their profits.
  5. If the causes of CD and AD are indeed multiple and personalized, as Dr Bredesen has demonstrated, the option of a universally effective single ‘magic pill’ would be excluded and could at best only be effective occasionally and randomly. Note: Dr Bredesen’s comment: “We’ve never seen a case of cognitive decline where there are less than 10 primary causes.”
  6. If there was such a treatment as the single cure-all ‘magic pill’, it surely would already have been discovered, developed, tested and widely marketed, most likely by one or more of the major international pharmaceutical companies.
  7. But it remains possible that an effective focused medication could be discovered, given the massive amount of research being undertaken as well as advancing technologies and knowledge of all types, even including spiritual.
  8. All significant official bodies and medical people and bodies associated with CD and AD recognise and warn about the massive dangers CD and AD presents for the future, including the current and fast-growing costs to countries for medical and care treatment.
  9. Several of articles, videos etc. noted in this paper contain a few aspects that are covered in Dr Bredesen’s protocol and life-style approach, but with few additions. A few, such as the well-known Dr Mercola (page 50), include reference to Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE protocol.
  10. Most of the single approach solutions offer minimal diagnosis or validation, but several indicate some significant successes in individual cases.
  11. All cases described by Dr Bredesen in his book as treated successfully exhibited major issues. None of the cases involved only mild issues.  It possible these mild cases would not exhibit the medical shortfalls revealed by Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE. Possibly this will be revealed in Dr Bredesen’s next book due later in 2020.
  12. At this stage, no specialists have been identified in Australia that are able to, or wish to, fully apply the ReCODE protocol.
  13. Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE appears to parallel the stomach ulcer about-turn. In 1982 two Australian scientists upset medical dogma by proving a bacterium, helicobacter pylori, causes stomach inflammation, ulcers and cancer, and so won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine yesterday. The findings went so against medical thinking that it took many years for an entrenched medical profession to accept it, even then, reluctantly. Possibly another such breakthrough will emerge for CD and AD?

Further updates will be provided shortly.

Index of contents:

Page 2   – Dr Dale Bredesen: End of Alzheimer’s. Description of book, protocol and articles

Page 10 – Summary of key tests for ReCODE Protocol

Page 14 – Adam MacDougall, News.com (summary of Dr Bredesen’s work)

Page 18 – The Buck Institute for Research on Aging

Page 18 – MoCA brain test

Page 18 – Brian exercises

Page 18 – Souvenaid

Page 18 – MCT oil 

Page 18 – Ashwagandha, an Indian herb

Page 18 – The APOE gene 

Page 18 – Redimind mixture / tonic (Nutreance)

Page 20 – Mayo Clinic

Page 20 – Webmd.com

Page 20 – National Institute of Aging

Page 20 – Dementia.org

Page 21 – Alzheimer’s Natural Treatment Options, Dr Josh Axe

Page 22 – New Scientist article

Page 22 – UK National Health

Page 23 – UCLA research May 2017

Page 23 – Natural News article

Page 25 – ScienceAlert.com article

Page 26 – ScienceDaily.com (2 articles)

Page 26 – Harvard Medical School

Page 27 – NCBI National Centre for Biological Information

Page 28 – Medical News Today – article

Page 28 – TED video

Page 28 – Dietician Amylee Amos

Page 29 – 7th BioCeuticals Research Symposium, May 2019

Page 29 – YouTube TED talk, Oct 17, 2015:

Alzheimer’s Is Not Normal Aging — And We Can Cure It

Page 29 – Collective Evolution, 2018 article

Page 30 – The Neuro Development Centre, Providence, Rhone Island, USA

Page 32 – Life Extension

Page 35 – Alzheimers Association

Page 36 – UC Berkeley School of Public Health

Page 36 – World Health Organisation (WHO)

Page 36 – Emory University – ADRC Research Centre

Page 37 – Wikipedia

Page 38Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Dept of Health

Page 38 – FamilyDoctor.org

Page 39Functional Medicine Coaching Academy (training for Dr Bredesen’s protocol)

Page 41 – SharpAgainNaturally

Page 42 – Healing Advocates

Page 42 – Curing Alzheimer’s with Science and Song, 25 min video

Page 43 – MCT and coconut oil

Page 43  Dementia is preventable through lifestyle. Start now

Page 44 – The latest news on Alzheimer’s disease and brain health research

Page 44 – Biogen Revives Aducanumab

Page 44 – MIT Scientists Reveal Brain Rhythm Role In Alzheimer’s Research

Page 45 – The End of Alzheimer’s, 67-minute interview, Dr Michael Fossel

Page 45 – Keto-nutrition, Dr Dominic D’Agostino

Page 46 – The link between diet, exercise and Alzheimer’s

Page 47 – Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease

Page 47 – What is Alzheimer disease? A simple explanation

Pages 47-49 Eight articles that explain how meditation can improve mental health

Page 49 – Cacao, a power drug for the brain

Page 50 – Harvard Medical School. Is my forgetfulness normal?

Page 52 – Analysis by Dr Joseph Mercola, 7 November 2019

Page 53 – Eat more citrus fruits & cucumbers, NaturalNews.com

Page 53 – Benefits of Ashwagandha

Page 53 – Distributed memory: the brain in the heart

Page 54 – Biogen aducanumab 

Page 54Sound Therapy

Page 55 – Drugs That Quell Brain Inflammation Reverse Dementia

Page 55 – Another Alzheimer’s Vaccine Moves Closer to Human Trials

Page 56 – Biogen Plans to Buy Early-Stage Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Treatment From Pfizer

Page 57 – How Flavonols, Found in Fruit and Tea, Can Stave Off Alzheimer’s

Page 58 – A non-invasive ultrasound technology

Page 58 – The Neuroprotective Effects of Astaxanthin

(Analysis, Conclusions and Summary – to come)


Dr Dale Bredesen’s book: End of Alzheimer’s

 https://www.amazon.com.au/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=dr+dale+bredesen

 https://www.apoe4.info/wiki/Bredesen_Protocol :

Dr. Dale Bredesen has created the ReCODE protocol that involves multiple strategies to address specific health issues that contribute to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). The results of each strategy are measured by using blood tests, cognitive evaluations, and other markers of overall health improvements. Actions are tweaked over time to aim for optimal lab and evaluation results. His analogy is to think of AD as a leaky roof – there are as many as 36 leaks in the AD roof that need to be addressed to stop the problem. Not every patient will have the same leaks, and the protocol is customized based on the patient’s genetics, current health, and lifestyle.

In 2014, his first published paper on the protocol, Reversal of Cognitive Decline, highlighted 10 case studies. Of those 10 people, nine showed enough improvement to return to normal life activities. Several hundred people with cognitive impairment have since followed the protocol, and most have seen a reversal of cognitive impairment. He published results of reversing various levels of cognitive decline in Reversal of Cognitive Decline: 100 patients, published October 2018. His book The End of Alzheimer’s, published August 2017 discusses his protocol and explains many of the mechanisms of Alzheimer’s.

Bredesen’s protocol has not been tested as a preventative, however in a May 2019 podcast interview, Dr Bredesen did say that he’s never had someone at risk come in for prevention and develop even mild cognitive impairment. Research has shown that amyloid is deposited in E4 carriers as early as their thirties, so addressing components prior to experiencing cognitive impairment symptoms will likely lead to better health and cognition in aging. Members on the APOE4.Info forum who follow the protocol report improvements not only in health but also in cognition, even if they do not have an SCI or MCI diagnosis.

Although Bredesen does not see private patients, he has made his protocol available to those seeking doctor assistance through AHNP: Precision Health. MPI Cognition, his previous affiliation, was acquired by AHNP and his prior affiliation with Muses Labs has ended.

 Dr Dale Bredeson End of Alzheimer’s book:  AUD4.99 on Kindle.  He has been researching Alzheimers with a highly qualified team for 25 years. Their view is that what is measured, in particular plaques and tangles (all explained in the book) are only the indirect cause of brain cells being killed deliberately.  The real cause, he explains, is that the brain has a natural defence mechanism that tries to stop the plaques and tangles forming and, if these build up too much, it goes haywire and starts killing too many brain cells.  The trick is to stop the mechanisms that cause the plaque and tangle growth. They have identified 36 so far (see below) and expect just a few more to be found.  These come in categories of inflammatory, toxic and nutrients.  Their programme is to identify which are the major causes for each individual – it varies it seems – and tackle each one starting with the most prominent.  Their program is called ReCODE, and they are training numerous nurses and doctors to apply it.  The reason ReCODE hasn’t made the main-stream is they are not allowed to carry out formal test approval programs, as required for all approved medical drugs.  Big Pharma only want to sell huge numbers of pills.  Problem is, it isn’t a matter of one super pill as each person’s needs vary as which of the 36+ are the major causes, so testing just one would be a waste of time and only appear to prove the treatment doesn’t work.  Ie stop the plaques and tangles forming and the brain’s defence mechanism reckons all is now well, stops killing cells and shuts down until needed.  But the official approval mechanism only allows one factor at a time to be tested, so the approval mechanism for multiple factors has not been approved.  They have had many successes when doctors who knew of this program sent their patients to Dr Bredesen – with amazing full recoveries. The list below links to summaries of why each strategy is important, what you can do, and a selection of research references. Dr Bredesen suggests that, just as people are recommended to have a colonoscopy when they hit 50 or 60 years of age to check their colon, they also should check their brains with a cognoscopy (chapter 7).

  Diet Strategies

Optimize diet

Enhance autophagy and ketogenesis

Improve GI Health

  Lifestyle Strategies

Reduce stress

Optimize sleep

Exercise

Rule out sleep apnea

Optimize mitochondrial function

  Lab Tests to Track and Treat

Homocysteine

B vitamins

Inflammation

Insulin sensitivity (insulin and blood glucose)

Hormones

Zn:fCu ratio

Vitamin D

Rule out heavy metal toxicity

Optimize antioxidants  ??

  Brain Strategies

Brain stimulation

Reduction of Aß

Cognitive enhancement

Increase NGF

Provide synaptic structural components

Increase focus

Increase SirT1 function

Inhalational Alzheimer’s (editing note: update to types of AD)

Resources

The latest news on Alzheimer’s disease and brain health research, interview, see page 40

52-minute video interview with Dr Bredesen, 4 September 2019. https://www.beingpatient.com/dale-bredesen-lifestyle-changes-prevent-alzheimers/

“We’ve never seen a case of cognitive decline where there are less than 10 primary causes”.

Dr. Dale Bredesen on Preventing and Reversing Alzheimer’s Disease – 68-minute video interview, 1 Oct 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq7uVZ_0D3U&t=472s

Dr Dale Bredesen discusses the metabolic factors underlying Alzheimer’s Disease – 86-minute video, 2 June 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS7VZydS8HI

Dr. Dale Bredesen, Changing the world of Alzheimer’s Disease Research – https://www.apollohealthco.com/dr-bredesen/

Dr. Mark Hyman Interviews Dr. Dale Bredesen on Cognitive Decline – 19-minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up8cGbUKS_c

The Bredesen protocol’s “Ketoflex” approach to diet and eating for Alzheimer’s disease. 5-minute video interview, 29 January 2019 video interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgi9IgdXr40

Presentation: Dementogens, Exposome, and Alzheimer’s: The Hidden Epidemic – 36-minutes presentation, 2 Oct 2018, Dale Bredesen, MD, UCSF and UCLA, discusses how environmental toxins may lead to Alzheimers disease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM8ouHPnQLI

Video Presentation: “The End of Alzheimer’s: The First Survivors”. Dale E. Bredesen, M.D., UCLA and Buck Institute | Professor of Neurology, Easton Laboratories for Neurodegenerative Disease Research | David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 6 Sept 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmIqeZvKpQ

The remainder of this research paper can be viewed at the link Research on cognitive decline and Alzheimers update,191124 

 

 

British democracy in action – or is it?

What will Brexit mean, both short and long-term?

Unlock the people

Unlock the people  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 2 May 2020

Covid hysteria is destroying public spirit. We have to reverse this right now.

A very striking thing has happened in British politics over the past couple of weeks: the liberal elite has suddenly fallen in love with public opinion.

The very politicos and observers who spent the past four years demonising public opinion and seeking to overthrow the largest democratic vote in the history of the UK – the vote for Brexit – now cheer the public for supporting the lockdown and feeling fearful about going back to normal life.

What a revealing insight into how this section of society relates to the people. When we behave as a genuine public, engaged in a free and open democratic contest over the political future of the country, they brand us stupid, brainwashed, possessed of bad, untrustworthy opinions. But when the people are no longer a proper public, and instead have been broken up into atomised households, firmly kept away from the public realm by authoritarianism and fear, they love what we have to say. They can’t get enough of it. Lockdown sceptics are ‘out of sync with public opinion’, trills one of those commentators who spent years casually arguing for the elite to overthrow the largest act of democratic public expression this country has ever known.

On one level, this can be seen as a simple case of people flagging up polls that seem to support their own worldview. We all do that. And the liberal elite has been uniformly in favour of a Chinese-style lockdown of society and the economy. Indeed, the media classes played a not unimportant role in pushing Boris Johnson towards a society-wide lockdown. So it is not surprising that, following years of disdaining public opinion as ill-informed, racist and too susceptible to the tricks of demagoguery, they now cite the public’s views regularly.

For the public seems to support the lockdown, too. To such an extent, in fact, that it is apparently worrying some government officials, who fear many members of the public may be reluctant to return to normal life even when the Covid threat has been significantly reduced. The latest Ipsos Mori polling finds that more than 60 per cent of us would feel uncomfortable about going to bars or restaurants or getting on public transport once the lockdown has been lifted. Forty per cent would feel unhappy about sending their kids to school. More than 30 per cent would be reluctant to return to work or meet friends.

This is the public opinion being cheered by the pro-lockdown left and by comfortably off members of the liberal elite who can still work from their large houses even as the rest of society grinds to a halt: a public opinion that is fearful, distressed, dazed by the prospect of returning to normal work life, social life, and public life. A public opinion that is not really public opinion at all, but rather is a collection of fearful views expressed by individuals who have been expelled from the public realm and who are literally prevented by law from gathering in public, taking part in political protests, or engaging in industrial action.

This is the ‘public’ that the liberal elite admires: a Potemkin public, a pretend public, a public that has been fairly successfully decommissioned and placed under something approaching house arrest. That liberals and leftists raged for years against a clear, confident and real act of public engagement (the vote for Brexit) and now cheer a hyper-fragmented ‘public’ as it expresses dread about the prospect of a return to normal life is incredibly, historically revealing.

It helps to explain their keenness on the lockdown. It suggests that one of the key things these people admire about the lockdown is that it has broken the public. It has retired those swathes of society that proved so disappointing to the elites in recent years, whether by their political choices or their apparently problematic lifestyles. The public-sector left, the woke-leaning elites and the Remainer wing of the establishment are generally favourable towards the lockdown not only because it has less of an impact on their lives than it does on other people’s, but also because it makes physically, legally real what they consider to be the ideal relationship between their class and the rest of us – that is, one in which they can still proffer their ‘expertise’ and advice on how the masses should be cared for and financed, while the rest of us are silenced, by law, and have been reduced essentially to non-citizens who must await the favour and instruction of the government and our betters.

Witness the excitability with which sections of the left have talked about the massive state spending in relation to Covid-19. This proves the importance of the state, they say. It shows that Universal Basic Income is possible, they claim. Some, including Jeremy Corbyn himself, cite the current situation as proof that their welfarist worldview was right all along. They are almost saying ‘Comrade Covid’, taking pleasure in the way that a virus has made real the political set-up they have long dreamt of: one in which the state has extraordinary power in relation to people’s lives and incomes, and in which the rest of us accept this as the natural order of things.

It’s remarkable: in the fear and defeatism being expressed by the decommissioned public in relation to Covid-19, these people glimpse the pacified, grateful public in receipt of state largesse that has for a long time fuelled their political fantasies and political activity.

Some of them use noble-sounding language to justify and celebrate the unprecedented use of law, policing and fear to break up the public and keep us all at home. They say the people are engaged in an act of ‘solidarity’. Staying at home is heroic, they claim. It shows how much we all care. This is entirely false. Solidarity is when active, engaged citizens recognise their commonalities and offer one another assistance in the pursuit of a political goal or a social good. Like the vote for Brexit, for example, which was a clear, free and public demand for more forms of social solidarity against the disempowering dynamic of technocratic rule and the individuating trends of neoliberalism. In contrast, the current fearful retreat from the public realm speaks to an atomised torpor that is the opposite of solidarity, and in which one of our few ‘public’ roles is to agree not to be a burden on the NHS. Stay home, do nothing, don’t impose on the system – this is compliance with authority, not solidarity.

Of course, there are glitches, hopeful glitches, in the culture of compliance nurtured in relation to Covid-19 and celebrated by the anti-democratic left and anti-masses elites. Not everyone is happy with the lockdown, of course. Surveys by King’s College London suggest that people can be split into three categories: we are accepting, suffering or resisting the lockdown. King’s says 48 per cent accept the lockdown, 44 per cent are suffering through it, and nine per cent are resistant to it. And even as the public has been broken up there have been acts of genuine solidarity, most strikingly through the setting-up of WhatsApp groups across the country in which people assist neighbours and look out for the vulnerable.

But while that’s all good, there is no avoiding the larger problem of compliance, resignation and retreat into the non-public realm. It is not surprising that this culture is being celebrated by sections of the liberal elite, for, fundamentally, it represents the very thing they failed to achieve over the past four years: the victory of fear over public spirit. Where their Project Fear in relation to Brexit was not successful, Project Fear in relation to Covid-19 has been. But that is what makes this all so destructive. Covid-19 is impacting on many people, as we know, but officialdom’s response to Covid-19 is having a devastating impact on public spirit and public life. Having unleashed fear, having convinced people that it is dangerous to go outside, having informed us that other people are a grave threat to our health and even our lives, the powers-that-be cannot now be shocked that the broken, over-policed public feels trepidation about returning to work, production and life. Existential dread is easy to push out, but difficult then to contain.

The destruction of public life and public engagement would be one of the worst consequences of the coronavirus crisis. It threatens to have dire impacts on social solidarity, social confidence and democratic citizenship that could outlast the virus itself. We need to reverse this damaging culture with urgency. Nothing less than an overhaul of the political narrative and an unflinching questioning of the culture of fear is required. Only by questioning the authoritarian new corona-laws, questioning the lockdown, questioning the idea that this virus outbreak is an apocalypse, and questioning the notion that the breaking-up and silencing of the public is an act of ‘solidarity’ can we begin to restore public life.

We have two fights on our hands: a medical, discrete fight against a novel virus, and a political fight against elites who relish rather too much the current suspension of political life, economic life and public life. We are not mere disease-carriers; we are also workers, producers and members of communities that can stand up to viruses and other threats together. In decommissioning the public, our society has destroyed its own best resource when it comes to dealing with crises. That’s enough – unlock the people.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

===================

Ignore the Britain-bashers

 

Ignore the Britain-bashers  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 19 April 2020

Shame on those who are using the Covid tragedy to bash Britain and sneer at British people.

Like vultures, they swoop. The Britain-bashers. The still bruised Remainers. The woke elites for whom Britain is little more than a former Empire, still riddled with racism and drunk on nationalism. All of these ghouls spy in the Covid-19 crisis a chance to put the boot into Britain. To say: ‘I told you so. I told you Britain wasn’t special. I told you this nation you foolishly worship is weak and useless.’ This is the sick Schadenfreude of the bourgeois defeatists who see Covid-19 almost as a rebuke from God – or someone – to a nation with dangerous delusions of grandeur.

Their vulture-like feasting on a country struggling to deal with a nasty new virus is clear from the headlines to their columns. ‘The myth of Great Britain must finally end when our government has failed us so badly over coronavirus’, says a piece in the Independent . The writer, a Corbynista, naturally, doesn’t only criticise the government’s strategy for dealing with the virus, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. She also mocks the ‘myth’ that Britain is a great country. The ‘illusion of a Great Britain’ and the nonsense idea of the ‘Blitz Spirit’ will surely collapse following the Covid crisis, she says. This is more than criticism of ministers and tactics. It feels like the pursuit of the culture war by other means, the weaponisation of the Covid tragedy to re-energise the Britain-bashing that had already become so rife among cut-off woke elites.

Everywhere they are taking aim at the supposed myth of British exceptionalism. The Covid defeatists have convinced themselves that the reason Britain has a relatively high number of Covid deaths is because Boris Johnson and his cabinet of Brexiteers – and by extension us dimwits who voted for them – took the ridiculous view that Britain is a unique, wonderful, freedom-loving country and therefore it would be wrong for us to rush into a lockdown. In the words of arch Britain-basher and obsessive opponent of Brexit, Fintan O’Toole, ‘On the altar of this exceptionalism, lives have been sacrificed’. So national pride isn’t only stupid and vulgar, a view the disconnected, pseudo-cosmopolitan elites have held for a long time – it is positively lethal, too.

‘Was it British exceptionalism’ that nurtured the current Covid-19 crisis, asks a writer for the New Statesman? It was partly ‘a sense of British exceptionalism’ that ramped up the Covid virus here, says one public-health expert. Brexit, of course, is never far from some of these people’s minds, given that our democratic rejection of the EU was also a rejection of their cultural miserabilism and technocratic arrogance. So it isn’t surprising that our alleged Covid mistakes have been neatly folded into the mistake (as they see it) of Brexit. ‘Whoever said that British exceptionalism would end with Brexit?’, one writer asks, perusing the apparently arrogant approach Britain’s deluded leaders initially took to the virus. We thought we could manage outside of the EU and now we think we can manage against a global virus – what fools we are.

Witness, too, the policing of any pro-British language in relation to the struggle against Covid-19. A writer in the Financial Times takes aim at all the talk of Blitz Spirit. The Blitz Spirit is ‘bunk’, he says, but it is ‘just too comforting a story for Britons to abandon’. And how about the unhinged response to Dominic Raab’s description of ill Boris as a ‘fighter’? From Newsnight to the Guardian – hard to tell the difference these days – they mocked the ‘fighter’ talk. ‘That kind of talk is dangerous’, a writer for the Independent claimed.

There is almost a sense of relish in some of this Covid commentary. The purveyors of this sick Schadenfreude seem to believe that Britain is finally being taught a lesson. This is clearest in Fintan O’Toole’s borderline mockery of Covid-hit Britain. The virus has ‘exposed the myth of British exceptionalism’, he trills. He mocks Boris for enforcing a lockdown reluctantly and for expressing regret about the loss of freedom it would entail. This nation is so ‘drunk on freedom’ that it is willing to harm itself, he says. British exceptionalism consists of a ‘fantasy of personal freedom as a marker of ethnic and national identity’. Having previously pathologised the vote for Brexit as the act of a deluded people nostalgic for Empire, now O’Toole pathologises our attachment to freedom as a kind of madness, a national drunkenness, just another story we tell ourselves in order to feel ethnically distinctive. Our love for democracy was racist, and our love for freedom is racist too, apparently.

O’Toole’s commentary increasingly comes across as anti-British bigotry. It is not criticism of governments or strategies, but of the entire culture of Britain and the comforting lies Brits apparently tell themselves. And don’t think for one moment that the Britain-bashing of O’Toole and the other Covid vultures is about attacking the elites. Their targets are just as often the little people, who, after all, are the ill-educated Empire nostalgists who put Boris in power. As O’Toole said of Brexit, it was powered by a strange mix of ‘people with tattooed arms and golf-club buffers’. We all know what ‘people with tattooed arms’ means: it’s the kind of phrase anti-democratic elites must use when political correctness restrains them from saying ‘scum’.

Covid Schadenfreude can likewise be glimpsed in the almost gleeful sharing of stats and graphs showing Britain’s daily death rate. This is clearest in the context-free doom-graphs made by John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times. Every day his graphs of death are latched on to by dystopian millennials and woke leftists as proof of the evilness of the Tories or the myth of Britain’s greatness. ‘Look how much worse we are doing than New Zealand!’, people cry, which is almost immeasurably ignorant. In terms of population density, the size of immigrant communities (in which the known co-morbidities of Covid-19 are often quite pronounced), and how we measure and document Covid-related deaths, Britain could not be more different to New Zealand, and other countries too. And yet none of this is factored in. Context is not permitted, because the overarching aim is one of horror, a desire to create a jarring, disorientating sense that Britain is doing worse than any other nation on Earth and that we absolutely must consent to being humbled and changed by this horrible experience. Maybe we should even rejoin the EU?

There is such a deep cynicism in all of this. It is not constructive criticism or debate, which we need in spades right now. Yes, we should be holding the government to account. Yes, we should talk about the ill-preparedness of the health service. Yes, we must reckon with the sclerotic nature of the bureaucracy we live under (which long predates Boris’s presence in Downing Street) and its lack of responsiveness. And yes, we should continue questioning the lockdown and its predicted disastrous impact on the economy. But the vulturism of the Britain-bashers is something very different. It represents the importing of pre-existing prejudices into the current crisis. It is the exploitation of a health crisis to the woke end of taming Britain, humbling the British people, ridiculing our belief in freedom and democracy, and questioning whether our attachment to the ideal of nationhood is wise in an era of global problems and global viruses. We need to be more ‘cosmopolitan and global’, as O’Toole says. Make no mistake: they are refighting the battle over Brexit on the terrain of Covid. They seem to hope a disease will achieve what they failed to achieve at the ballot box: the neutering of British nationhood and the taming of British democracy.

=====================

‘The Alleged Cure Is Immensely Worse Than the Disease’

‘The Alleged Cure Is Immensely Worse Than the Disease’  By Brendan O’Neill and Peter Hitchens, Spiked, 6 April 2020

Peter Hitchens on the dangerous folly of the Covid-19 shutdown.

In the past few weeks, society has been shut down, the economy has been put on hold, and civil liberties have been curtailed in the name of fighting against coronavirus. There has been hardly any scrutiny of or opposition against these ever-stricter measures. Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens has been one of the few dissenting voices in the media. He joined spiked editor Brendan O’Neill for the latest episode of The Brendan O’Neill Show.

Brendan O’Neill: We live in a country where parliament has been suspended, our most basic freedoms have been eroded, we are all virtually under house arrest, and there are a whole bunch of new rituals we all have to observe when we encounter other people, which is increasingly rare. Like me, are you a bit terrified by the speed and the ease with which Britain became this country?

Peter Hitchens: I wouldn’t say terrified – distressed and grieved, but not terrified. I am actually not shocked because in several controversies in recent years, where I have thought that the people of this country would stand against the way in which they were being bullied and messed around, I have noticed that there hasn’t been all that much spirit of liberty. I think there is an awful lot of conformism now in this country and people have accepted being pushed around. I’m not sure parliament has been suspended exactly. It has just folded up or dissolved into a pool of blancmange. If it had any kind of leadership, it could insist on continuing to sit, just as it could have opposed the action or subjected it to anything remotely resembling scrutiny. But it just folded up and stole away in the night. All the institutions of civil society which are supposed to protect us did the same thing. The judiciary, the human-rights lot, the civil service, the media, parliament, Her Majesty’s Opposition and public opinion in general have simply failed to do their jobs. It has demonstrated that we don’t really have a civil society any longer. In the Soviet Union, where I spent a lot of time, it was clear that there was only one official point of view and that people were being pushed around. I don’t recall ever being compelled to stay at home, and there was at least a pretence made of having a legislative body as well.
But the point that strikes me here is that – particularly in the Eastern European countries, but also largely in Russia – most people regarded the Soviets’ rule with a certain amount of contempt and made jokes about it and realised they were being mocked and fooled. In this case, the population accepts what they are being told, without any question. It’s extraordinary. The old USSR would have loved to have had a population like that in the Western world and in the United Kingdom, which genuinely believes the propaganda and does what it is told. You could say, ‘The chocolate ration has gone up’, when in fact it has gone down and people will believe it.

O’Neill: You have written some very solid pieces, questioning the need for this kind of shutdown. Let’s just talk for a moment about the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in. There is this novel virus, which undoubtedly causes great harm, especially to older people and to medically vulnerable people, and in response to it – which is unprecedented in human history – we have closed down virtually the whole of society and most of the economy, and in the process we have stored up immeasurable problems for the future. I think you have found it a bit of a struggle to convince people that this might not be the best way to tackle a virus? Hitchens: It’s extraordinary. Again, the willingness of people to accept that ‘something must be done, and this is something, so we will do this’. The argument goes, ‘We have a problem, the way of solving it is to shut down the country and strangle civil liberties. Therefore, let’s do that.’ What I have been surprised by is how little examination there has been to whether there is any logic to this. It is as if you went to the doctor with measles and the doctor said that this was serious measles and the only treatment for it is to cut off your left leg. And he cuts off your left leg and then later on, you recover from the measles and he says, ‘This is fantastic. I’ve cured you of the measles, sorry about your leg.’ That is more or less what is going on now. We are being offered a supposed treatment which has nothing whatever to do with the problem. Other countries have not resorted to these measures. We have modelled ourselves, bizarrely, on the most despotic country in the world, the People’s Republic of China, whose statistics are wholly unreliable and whose media are totally supine, so we can’t really know what is going on there. And in fact, all the countries which have had serious outbreaks of Covid-19, they have almost all reacted differently. Even Singapore and Hong Kong, which are widely praised for what they did, did different things. And yet, oddly enough, the results in Singapore and Hong Kong were quite similar. Japan has done something different. South Korea did something different. And again, the virus actually did not continue to grow at the rates which Imperial College apparently think are inevitable if we don’t shut down our society. Even if you went for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that because A happened, and B happened after it, B happened because of A, there isn’t even a basis for that – let alone anything remotely resembling research showing a causal relationship between a Chinese-type shutdown and the defeat of the disease. There are rational responses to this. And of course it seems to me, the crucial test of any policy, and indeed almost any human action, is not absolute right or absolute wrong – which very rarely arises in practical life – it is proportionality. Is the action in proportion to the problem? If you look at the past and the problems which this country and its medical system have almost every winter, for instance with influenza, the complications of it are considerable. In one year recently, 28,000 people died of influenza because the vaccines didn’t work and it was a particularly virulent strain. The average number who die of influenza every year is 17,000 in England alone, and this does not cause the country to be shut down. It is doubtless tragic for all those involved, but you can’t use emotionalism to justify policy. I have a quote here from Jonathan Sumption’s interview on The World At One on Monday because it simply hasn’t been stressed enough in the coverage of what he said. They have gone on about what he said about the police, which was a marginal part of what he said. His key point was this: ‘The real question is, is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up, saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable, and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all?’ Actually, that’s exactly what I think. But I’m not a former Supreme Court judge. I’m not one of Britain’s most distinguished lawyers. And I’m not one of Britain’s most distinguished historians. I’m not the deliverer of last year’s Reith Lectures. This is a perfectly valid sentiment expressed by somebody with considerable authority and wisdom. And it isn’t even reported by the media when he says it. They leave it out of the reports of what he says because no one is prepared to confront this. There is an omertà – a total, supine, consensus over this matter. The complete failure to debate it is astonishing to me. And it’s the lack of proportion that Sumption is stressing there. Even if this were an effective policy, could it possibly be justified, given the disastrous results? As I say, if you had a disease from which you might or might not recover, and you were offered the amputation of all four of your limbs, and perhaps your head, and were asked to sign a consent form, you would probably say no, even if it would kill you, because you would recognise that the cure was worse than the disease – a phrase which repeatedly occurs to me, even though Donald Trump has used it, which always puts people off. But it is the case. The alleged cure – and it is only alleged in this case – is immensely worse than the disease, because what happens to a society which trashes its economy? I will tell you what happens. It is unable to afford proper health provision, all of its standards decline, its food gets worse, its air quality gets worse, its housing gets worse, its water quality gets worse, and everybody gets iller. The other point is one made by the extraordinary Professor Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz University in Germany, an absolute genius in the microbiological method, who is utterly against these measures. He has said, what about the healthy old now they have been deprived of all the things that make life worth living? He reckons that this shutting down of their lives will be catastrophic, and almost certainly cause large numbers of deaths. So you can’t just say, ‘Oh, you don’t care about people dying’. That’s not what the argument is about. I care about people dying unnecessarily as much as anybody else, and my motives are as good as anybody else’s. It is just that my emotions are also driven by more intelligent thought, more reason and a better grasp of the facts.

O’Neill: I think Sumption’s intervention was very useful for a number of reasons. But one of them is what you have just touched upon, which is this really poisonous accusation that has been made against anyone who criticises the shutdown of society, which is, ‘You don’t care about old people,’ or even, ‘You want old people to die.’

Hitchens: Well, during the Iraq War, if you said, ‘Actually this war is wrong’, people said, ‘Oh, so you support Saddam Hussein’s fascist regime, do you? You believe that Saddam should be allowed to torture people, do you? That’s the sort of person you are, are you?’. And because of that shutting down of serious debate on a major matter, I think this should probably be called VMD – the virus of mass destruction. It is so very similar in the attempts to crush dissent.

O’Neill: They make this completely false distinction. They say this is a question of lives versus the economy. They talk about the economy as if it’s just some kind of abstract machine, just numbers and money and profits, when in fact the economy is people’s lives and their livelihoods. It’s how we create things, it’s how we produce things. Dr John Lee made a very good point in the Spectator, which is that this is lives versus lives. And that’s the kind of debate we need to be having.

Hitchens: That’s assuming, again, that the fundamental premise that shutting down the country will do any good is true, which I believe, is seriously in doubt. I’m a Christian, and there’s this wonderful part of the scriptures in which we are said to live and move and have our being in God. But in a material way, we live and move and have our being in the economy. If nobody is buying, if nobody is selling, if nobody is working, if nobody is serving, if nobody is being served, then there is nowhere for people to live, how do we pay for our houses and our meals? How do we raise our children? How do we support an education system? How do we pay doctors or build hospitals? If we have no economy at the moment, I would reckon, if we could only know the sums, we are probably throwing three or four district general hospitals into the sea or their equivalents in money every week.

Peter Hitchens was talking to Brendan O’Neill in the latest episode of The Brendan O’Neill Show.

====================

More articles concerning British ‘democracy’

Could energy be free?

Modern society growth is proportional to available energy, so the availability of cost-effective energy for everyone is clearly critical.  This post presents a range of issues with regard to the science, views and potential for free energy and so-called renewable energy.

Scroll down to see additional articles at the end of the post.

New Technology, It’s All About to Change

 

New Technology, It’s All About to Change  By Zach Zorhies

Editor’s note: this article should be read in conjunction with others in this post. Whilst it provides a useful update, it does not cover several key components.

For centuries, our primary energy source has been hydrocarbon-based, and since the 19th century, most of that has been in the form of petroleum. In 1975, the US dollar was cemented as the world’s main reserve currency with the establishment of OPEC and the petrodollar system, which obliged the main petroleum-producing countries to accept payment for their oil in USD and to invest their surplus oil proceeds in US government debt securities.

 

Many believe that the true motive for the Iraq War was because Saddam Hussein converted all of Iraq’s oil transactions in the Oil for Food Program to euros and that the Deep State-controlled Bush Administration sought to maintain the USD as the international reserve currency and to block a more widespread adoption of the euro as an oil-pricing standard. After the US’ 2003 invasion, Iraq returned the denomination of its oil sales to the US dollar, despite the dollar’s decreased value.

 

Yet today, the fact that China, Venezuela and Iran freely bypass the USD in their oil transactions without triggering similar reprisals indicates that the dollar is no longer worth defending and that its status as the world’s reserve currency is coming to end. Perhaps more importantly, this indicates that petroleum as a primary energy source is coming to an end. At the fire sale price points we’ve been seeing for the stuff, it will no longer be worth it to take it out of the ground.

 

Many of us are aware that there are alternative energy technologies that have been actively suppressed to maintain the global economic control system and energy paradigm. This interview with Zach Vorhies gives us a glimpse at how the Deep State operates in this arena today. With the fresh eyes we now have from the Great Awakening, after being brutalized for four years by the political – and now biowarfare – antics of the Deep State, we can really see it in the suppression of all-important clean, cheap energy technologies.

 

Zach Vorhies, who was a Senior Engineer at Google-YouTube for 8 years is back on the X22’s Spotlight to talk about the dawn of widely-available clean, cheap energy within the next decade. The topic of cold fusion hit his radar while he was working at YouTube and he saw that Google executives, including current CEO, Sundar Pichai lied to Congress when they denied blacklisting any websites. Vorhies had seen in Google’s corporate intranet that several websites were blacklisted in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting. One site however, had nothing to do with the Las Vegas Massacre, Andrea Rossi’s independent cold fusion website, E-Catworld.com, about which FKTV published about a few times, back in 2011.

 

Further digging led Vorhies to the discovery that Google had their own secret cold fusion laboratory, which has since been made public. So, not only has Google been blacklisting businesses that are competitors of their strategic ventures, they’ve been actively suppressing vital information about an important alternative energy technology, while attempting to develop it as their own intellectual property.

 

Zach tells of arranging to meet with the head of Google’s cold fusion lab to make an introduction to Rossi, only to be met with a total psychopath, an executive from a cryptocurrency company that Google had acquired who was heir to an old railroad fortune and a Rockefeller crony. A more classic Deep Stater could be scarcely imaginable.

 

Zach has since become an avid follower of Ken Wheeler, who has further developed Nikola Tesla’s Aethereal Mechanics (explained in more detail in the interview transcript below) and developed SunCell® technology, which is able to tap energy from the Dark Matter found in the water molecules that are freely available in atmospheric humidity.

 

Unlimited energy would mean a whole new world. As Zach says here:

 

“This makes wind obsolete. This makes solar obsolete. This makes nuclear uranium fission obsolete. This makes all the other energy systems that we’ve used obsolete…we can imagine part of it but the new things that will come are the ‘unknown unknowns’. We can’t even imagine what it would look like in a society with unlimited energy…And not only people – but entire nations…With decentralized abundant energy, everywhere the Globalists lose their main control over the world.”

 

A full transcript of this interview appears in the 43-minute video: https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/ds-kept-technology-from-the-people-its-all-about-to-change-controlled-no-more-zach-vorhies/

===================

Extracting Energy From The Quantum Vacuum: Can Zero-Point Energy Power Our Planet?

Extracting Energy From The Quantum Vacuum, Can Zero-Point Energy Power Our Planet  By Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution – CE, 24 September 2019

  • The Facts:

Quantum mechanics has discovered that “empty” space is not empty, and that it’s full of energy. Can this energy be utilized and drawn upon to provide power and replace our energy industry?

  • Reflect On:

What would be the implications of new energy technology that allowed everyone on the planet access to clean energy?

The famous world-renowned American theoretical physicist John Wheeler once told the world that, “No point is more central than this, that space is not empty, it is the seat of the most violent physics.” Notice the importance he put on the fact that space is not empty, and that there is no point “more central” than that. The fact that space is not empty has huge implications, some of which we will explore in this article.

Nikola Tesla said that “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” There is no doubting this statement given the fact that to our senses, an atom, the bits of matter that make up what we perceive to be our physical material world, is 99.9 percent empty space. But again, it’s not empty, it’s actually full of energy. The field of quantum mechanics was key for questioning the perceived material foundations of reality by showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects.

This empty space that exists all around us, this non-perceivable “substance,” for lack of a better term, has been written about for thousands of years. I’d like to use an example from ancient Greece.

And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; and he asked them of what they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied; “Of elements.” “Are there then four?” he asked. “Not four,” said Larchas,  “but five.” “And how can there be a fifth,” said Apollonius, “alongside of water and air and earth and fire?” “There is the ether,” replied the other, “which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the wire, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether.” “Am I,” said Appollonius, “to regard the universe as a living creature?” “Yes,” said the other. – The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD (source)

In the past, many referred to this “empty space” as ether or aether.

All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena.”– Nikola Tesla, Man’s Greatest Achievement, 1907

Today, physicists seem to refer to it as the “Quantum Vacuum” or “Zero-Point” energy field.

So, the next question becomes, can we tap into this energy field? Can we use it to power our world and have “free” energy? Please keep in mind here that the term “free” energy is often misused. Free energy has nothing to do with money, it is called free energy because the quantum vacuum is limitless, it never runs out, it’s not a finite resource but rather an infinite resource.

“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel. Throughout space there is energy… It is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheel work of nature.” – Nikola Tesla (source)

Can We Tap Into The Quantum Vacuum?

The idea that space is full of energy is not a theory. A man by the name of Hendrik Casimir proved that empty space actually contains fluctuations of electromagnetic waves. He suggested that two metal plates held apart in a vacuum could trap the waves, creating vacuum energy that could attract or repel the plates. As the boundaries of a region move, the variation in vacuum energy (zero-point energy) leads to the Casimir effect. Recent research done at Harvard University and Vrije University in Amsterdam and elsewhere has proved the Casimir effect to be correct. (source)

How much energy is available? According to two of the most prominent researchers in the field, Eric W. David and H.E. Puthoff from the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, the energy density in the quantum vacuum is “enormous.” (source)

A number of studies have brought up the topic of extracting energy from the quantum vacuum, for example, a paper titled “Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum” by Puthoff  in conjunction with Daniel C. Cole, Ph.D. and Associate Professor at Boston University in the Department of Mechanical Engineering stated a number of years ago that:

Relatively recent proposals have been made in the literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that yes, in principle, these proposals are correct.

The truth is, “the concept of the conversion of energy from vacuum fluctuations is in principle not falsifiable.”

But, according to mainstream academia, “Even though experimental efforts at energy extraction from the vacuum have been proposed or are already under way at various laboratories, definitive theoretical support underpinning the concept of useful extraction of energy from quantum fluctuations is not yet in place. (source)

Is this really true? Or is it simply one of many examples of scientific suppression?

The reality of scientific suppression is no joke, it’s actually quite evident, and there are many examples. A great example is the “Invention Secrecy Act,” which was written in 1951. Under this act, patent applications on new inventions can be subjected to secrecy orders. These orders can restrict their publication if government agencies believe that their disclosure would be harmful to national security.

Today, the term “national security” is a complete joke. It’s become an umbrella term used to classify any information or technological development that threatens big corporate interests or any agenda/plan the global elite has for the human population.

Steven Aftergood from the Federation of American Scientists reports on a list that was obtained from invention secrecy orders from 1971:

“The 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies in “excess of 70-80%.” (source)

Could zero-point energy propulsion systems and energy generators be on today’s secrecy lists?

There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more. – Dr. Theodor C. Loder III, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire (source)

Before his passing, Dr. Brian O’Leary, a former NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics professor told the world that:

These concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories all over the world, yet never see the light of day. If the new energy technologies were set free worldwide the change would be profound. It would affect everybody, it would be applicable everywhere. These technologies are absolutely the most important thing that have happened in the history of the world. – Dr. Brian O’Leary, Former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor (source)

Furthermore, there are strange things happening within the world of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and the people involved. Take Steve Justice, for example, the recently retired Director of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Skunkworks who is  on board with To The Stars Academy, a UFO initiative headed by former Blink 182 rockstar Tom Delonge, bringing together some very interesting people like Justice to raise awareness about the reality of UFOs. UFOs have been photographed, video taped, and tracked on radars performing maneuvers that defy our known laws of physics. Their goal, or one out of many, is to bring forth these technologies that have been locked up in the black budget world in order to help humanity thrive.

Is this not enough evidence showing that there is something fishy going on? Take a read of the statement below by Justice. While discussing the concept for the craft that To The Stars plans to build, he stated that:

This is a concept for an international point-to-point transportation craft that will erase the current travel limits of distance and time. It mimics the capabilities observed in unidentified aerial phenomenon by employing a driver system that alters space-time metric. We have glimpses of how the physics of this works, but we need to harvest technologies from the Science Division to “realize” the capability.

This quote was on the To The Stars website for more than a year. I’ve used it in multiple articles and have seen it many times. The site has since been changed, and it’s no longer up there. To give it more credibility, To The Stars has been quite open about crafts that alter the space-time metric, and this quote was also used by multiple mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and Scientific American in regards to Justice speaking about these crafts.

Even renowned UFO researcher Leslie Keen, in an article for the Huffington Post, emphasized:

Steve’s objective is to harvest this advanced technology to build a vehicle that will allow for almost instantaneous travel through land, air, oceans and space, by engineering the fabric of space-time. Such a vehicle could also float, like something from science fiction. Steve says we have had glimpses of the science that could make this possible.

Right now, on the site, an important point made states: “As noted in our October 2017 TTSA kickoff webcast, technologies that would allow us to engineer the spacetime metric would bring capabilities that would fundamentally alter civilization, with revolutionary changes to transportation, communication, and computation.”

Based on the quotes given by Justice, he is admitting to the fact that there are technologies available in the “Science Division” that have been kept from humanity, and that it’s known within this division that some of these UFOs actually employ “a driver system that alters space-time metric.”

The statement by Justice echoes the statements made decades ago by Ben Rich, the second Director of Lockheed Skunkworks from 1975-1991.

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do it.”

“We now have technology to take ET home. No it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars.”

“There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build and the ones ‘they’ build.”

You can read more about the sources for these quotes from Ben Rich here.

This begs the question, was Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell correct when he stated flat out that, “yes, there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered”? Have covert black budget programs obtained extraterrestrial crafts and reverse engineered them?

Earlier in this article, I cited a paper published by Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis illustrating that the energy density in the quantum vacuum is “enormous.” Davis is a very well-known scientist. For many years, he was a member of the National Institute for Discovery Sciences (owned by Robert Bigelow) and the Chief Science Officer of EarthTech Int’l, Inc. and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, and he is now the Owner/Chief Executive/Chief Scientist of Warp Drive Metrics, which consults and contracts for the Department of Defense. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Early Universe, Cosmology and Strings Group at the Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics & Engineering Research at Baylor University in Waco, TX.

By the way, Robert Bigelow has been quite outspoken about the knowledge he has that we are not alone and that extraterrestrial beings are “already here.”

Puthoff is also a very well-known scientist who has done a lot of work for the Department of Defense.

A recently leaked document has exposed notes regarding a meeting Davis had with Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson, who was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in which they discussed an extraterrestrial space craft. This meeting was also confirmed prior to this leak by astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who was also in attendance.

The documents point towards a program that involves the crash retrieval of extraterrestrial crafts that are “not made of this earth, not made by man.” You can view the entire document here and read more about it and watch a discussion CE founder Joe Martino and I had about it on CETV here.

I also recently published an article about a former member of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Richard Doty, whose identity has been verified by Hal Puthoff, stating that multiple extraterrestrial crafts are in the hands of the US government and that many of them use zero point energy for their propulsion systems.

Furthermore, there are multiple patents and multiple inventors who claim to have invented electrical generators that are powered by zero-point energy.

One example is Parahamsa Tewari, who invented such a machine, but has since passed. He is pictured below with Brian O’Leary, and you can find out more about his life’s work here if you’re interested.

A century from now, it will be well known that: the vacuum of space which fills the universe is itself the real substratum of the universe; vacuum in a circulating state becomes matter; the electron is the fundamental particle of matter and is a vortex of vacuum with a vacuum-less void at the center and it is dynamically stable; the speed of light relative to vacuum is the maximum speed that nature has provided and is an inherent property of the vacuum; vacuum is a subtle fluid unknown in material media; vacuum is mass-less, continuous, non viscous, and incompressible and is responsible for all the properties of matter; and that vacuum has always existed and will exist forever….Then scientists, engineers and philosophers will bend their heads in shame knowing that modern science ignored the vacuum in our chase to discover reality for more than a century. – Tewari

The words above come from the late Parahamsa Tewari, who recently had a paper published in Physics Essays. The paper is entitled “Structural Relation Between The Vacuum Space and The Electron. You can access the full study here. Tewari also points out that dark matter has been mistaken for what it really is, as he describes in his “Space Vortex Theory”:

The interesting part about Tewari is that, from his theory, he took it out of the theoretical realm by generating machinery based on the science, in the form of an electrical generator. Again, you can learn more about that at the link to his website above the picture.

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to realize that extracting energy from the Quantum vacuum is, within the mainstream, only theoretically possible, but there is an enormous amount of evidence suggesting that it’s already been done and that this type of activity and technological breakthrough has been kept hidden from the human race for many years.

Our potential as a species is huge. We seem to already have the energy solutions we need. But if that’s true, we need to ask ourselves, why are they not being implemented, and what systems are in place that prevent the solutions from coming out?

Discovering solutions is not the issue–the issue is with greed, ego, manipulation, and selfishness. Until our race transitions from the majority of people being self-serving to the majority being in service to others, we cannot progress as a society. Human consciousness needs to change, not technological development. Our intelligence is great, it’s the intention behind what we do and the technological breakthroughs we make that really matters.

Related CE Article: Scientists Call Out “Dark Matter” – Have We Been Wrong About It All Along? 

=====================

Could energy be free?

Could energy be free A series of articles about ‘free energy’, 30 Sept 2017

Interim conclusions:

  •  The technology for ‘free’ (over-unity) energy has been demonstrated beyond doubt to be known by some ‘black’ government departments and subcontractors, but is currently kept secret.
  • Numerous crimes have been committed by deep state government groups and associated military/industrial organisations to protect their industry and advantages.
  • The technologies for ‘free energy’ include zero-point (sub-atomics / quantum) as well as received electro-magnetic energy.
  • ‘Science’ has made fundamental errors, deliberate and otherwise, including defining energy systems as ‘closed’.
  • Open experiments to produce ‘free’ energy have to date been suppressed covertly by energy industry leaders.
  • Access to ‘free’ energy will eventually enable massive improvements throughout all parts of the world, far greater than the industrial revolution.

 Introduction

Modern society growth is proportional to available energy, so the availability of cost-effective energy for everyone is clearly critical.  This post presents a range of issues with regard to the science, views and potential for free energy and so-called renewable energy.

Of the seven largest markets in the world; energy, agriculture, telecoms, auto, chemicals, packaged foods, and pharma, the energy market surpasses all others by a minimum margin of $3.3 trillion dollars per year. The growing demand for energy drives market size projections to $10.4 trillion per year by 2020, helping energy maintain its dominant position in the world markets.   The 2013 world GDP was USD75.59 trillion, so energy comprised about 15%.

Numerous organizations are working flat-out to develop low-cost devices that could provide almost-free energy that potentially could destroy or replace most of the current energy industry.  Question: how do you think energy industry leaders are reacting?  Read banker J P Morgan’s reaction to Nicola Tesla’s inventions below, and view Thomas Bearden’s videos, also below.

However, most of the official scientific views of ‘free energy’, Tesla’s demonstrations, zero-point energy and the like are dismissive.   But then, recall everyone ‘knew’ the sun went around the earth, and peptic ulcers were caused by stress and acidity – until 2 doctors, who had been scoffed at for 20 years – proved these ulcers were caused by bacteria, and won Nobel prizes.  Science has an alarming history of ‘getting it wrong’. As Einstein said, it only takes one person to prove I’m wrong’.

There is considerable evidence that some US ‘black’ government departments have been aware of the ability to produce ‘free’ energy for many decades. This is discussed below, in particular by Dr Greer.

Caveat

The reader is advised that most of what is presented in this section is very different from what he/she is likely to have been taught, read and viewed.  Rather than scoffing, which is a natural reaction, it would be better to maintain an open mind and consider the degree that past information on this and allied subjects may have been manipulated for entirely different ends.

A broad introduction to subject of ‘free energy’ is presented by the Sirius project.  Dr Carol Rosin interviews Dr Steve Greer to discuss an update on Sirius Disclosure (34 mins intro, implementation at 77 mins, ends 94 mins) – audio interview.  Note: there are many more later presentation covering major progress.  Also the following video interview with Dr Carol Rosin: Von Braun’s legacy – 34 min 2013 YouTube

Zero Point Energy

 Recent article (170930) explaining the current situation and issues surrounding ‘free energy’. Note in particular the third video.  ZPE / ‘free energy’ has been demonstrated for over a century, but bankers (J P Morgan / Nicola Tesla), the international energy industry (estimated to be worth well over $200 trillion) all conspire to steal the technologies, experiments etc. and prevent the world from getting free energy.

  • http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/multiple-scientists-confirm-free-energy.html
  • Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Bearden, US Army, PhD, probably THE world guru on the subject, explains how energy can be extracted from the ‘zero points field’, the ‘dipole’ effect and how and why this form of free energy has been buried by various black government, financial and industrial operations as well as the scientific community and non-availability of patents for ‘perpetual motion machines’. A 2013 video presents the science, issues and economics in fairly simple language.  An earlier similar video below.  The third bullet provides Tom Bearden’s incredible CV.
  • Another video recorded around 2002, but similarly valid in now, presents a similar series of issues. The main difference is that his point regarding ‘money-printing’ has extended his forecasted deadline – 47 minutes
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wleifp3Fbe0
  • Thomas article:  Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum 2002. This long and very technical article explains most aspects in detail.
  • Also a selection of videos from Beardon’s website. Check too a range of other YouTube videos in Beardon’s name.
  • A 6-minutes video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFEmMotPNo, followed by a 50 min video that explains many associated factors.
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJY8XqFnAyg&ebc=ANyPxKoiO2_L3WFfQZyyXFBfL8GqxZ_cFZPrZTreDPlVY5OmjBo2cSRCdlSWUGDYCAqgVu8dBTQJ5uNoF6tJPFEI-PTeWJ4Vow
  • The history of free energy, suppression, economic cartels in energy preventing free energy, assassination etc.  and how it works – over-unity power systems, Lt Colonel Thomas Bearden note quotes etc.  This old video ~2003 – predicts the world will be into mass war in 2007/08 or sooner if new energy generation is prevented – his logic remains, but the various institutions, cartels etc. have managed to delay free energy for another decade since. By Eugene Mallove RIP.
  • Description of zero-point energy by Dr Hal Puthoff – (watch Dr Mallove’s 3 videos at the end of first video)
  • A gateway to ZPE and a new ‘particle’?
    • http://gizadeathstar.com/2016/06/new-fifth-force-nature-discovered-well-maybe-cant-resist-high-octane-speculations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GizaDeathStar+%28Giza+Death+Star%29

 

The Perpetual Motion Machine science scam

Science skeptic and writer, Martin Gardner has called claims of such zero-point-energy-based systems, “as hopeless as past efforts to build perpetual motion machines.”  Perpetual motion machine refers to technical designs of machines that can operate indefinitely, optionally with additional output of excessive energy, without any cited input source of energy, which is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

But technical designs to harness zero-point energy would not fall into this category because sub-atomic zero-point energy is claimed as the input source of energy’.  The issue is, what boundaries comprise the overall system in which the energy resides?

‘Science’ considers all energy systems are ‘closed’; that is, no energy can come in or out of them.  Closed system thermodymamics is taught as gospel by conventional academics and forms the foundation of our civilization and all current technologies. The problem is, there is no such thing as a closed system. All systems have varying degrees of interaction with their environments, both macro, micro, nano and sub-atomic (quantum).  ZPE, for instance, considers energy from sub-nuclear ‘fields’.   Electro-magnetism comes in and goes out from everywhere in the universe (albeit in rather small amounts after applying the cube rule to distant sources).

Another key factor is those who control all energy in the world are less than keen on experiments with above-unity power system, so they do everything they can to stop them (e.g. JP Morgan and Tesla).

‘Science’ appears to have made a colossal mistake in simplifying Maxwell’s equations (see Tom Beardon’s article) and losing a key component that provided for over-unity power generation. But science in universities etc. get all their funding from governments who stick with the PC view, including science.

However, there are cracks appearing in the armor.  One article noted ‘As to whether zero-point energy may become a source of usable energy, this is considered extremely unlikely by most physicists, and none of the claimed devices are taken seriously by the mainstream science community. Nevertheless, SED interpretation of the Bohr orbit (above) does suggest a way whereby energy might be extracted. Based upon this a patent has been issued and experiments have been underway at the University of Colorado (U.S. Patent 7,379,286).’

There are many other views and experiments to develop over-unity power system (the system generates more power than it consumes) deploy various electro-magnetic forces, often based on Tesla’s experiments.  Some have been demonstrated to be successful, but without full explanations are to how or why they work. There are many examples of these experimenters being either bought off or possibly assassinated.  It is assumed those controlling various aspects of the power industry are responsible for such repression.

Nikola Tesla

 A Device to Harness Free Cosmic Energy Claimed by Nikola Tesla: “This new power for the driving of the world’s machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities.” It is not clear how or whether this related directly to zero-point energy.  It is fully documented that banker JP Morgan believed it would work and preclude his profiting from selling energy; he sabotaged Tesla’s progress and stole Tesla’s patents.  Acknowledged as the greatest inventor ever, as a result, Tesla died a pauper. First a long interview with Tesla from ~1900, with a link to a 1916 interview.

  • The ‘science’ of frequencies, and their relevance. Nikola Tesla, the great genius and father of electromagnetic engineering, had once said, “If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would hold a key to the universe”. The 3, 6, and 9 are the fundamental root vibrations of the Solfeggio frequencies. Albert Einstein stated: “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” All matter beings vibrate at specific rates and everything has its own melody. The musical nature of nuclear matter from atoms to galaxies is now finally being recognized by science.
  • Tesla: his background, genius and how his advances were stolen. To what effect now?
    •  

Dr Steven Greer (also covered in part below in Extra-terrestrials and UFOs)

 Steven Greer, re new/free energy/East Trinity summary 2009.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jfTK5KFHXQ Also
  • Greer video, 16 mins, in which he explains a conversation with a billionaire who would not back Greer’s free energy device because GM already had this, but an executive who was planning to release it to produce free-energy cars was murdered 2 weeks after he presented his plans. The 85-year old billionaire said he was not afraid for himself, but for his family.  NB this is the fifth video in a 5-part series.
    •  
  • The potential for ‘free energy’ is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy – Utilization Controversy section.  Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground stateDespite the scientific stance to typically discount the claims, numerous articles and books have been published addressing and discussing the potential of tapping zero-point-energy from the quantum vacuum or elsewhere. See 44 references with links.

==================

Inherit the Wind (and not much else)

Inherit the Wind (and not much else)  By David Archibald, Quadrant Online, 8 Feb 2015

 The RET Scheme, a monstrous mis-allocation of resources, continues to make Australia poorer for no good reason.  Those who concocted and voted for it seem determined to hobble the nation’s prospects while slipping some $5 billion every year into the pockets of rent-seeking saboteurs

One Senate inquiry is addressing Australia’s drift towards a fuel crisis, a sin of omission on the part of the Rudd/Gillard government and the current Liberal one.  Another Senate inquiry is investigating a sin of commission that started under John Howard’s watch and continues to this day, namely the proliferation of wind turbines under the RET Scheme.

Submissions to the latter inquiry are online here.  I commend submission Number Five by your humble correspondent. It is reproduced below:

No electric power producer would take power from a wind turbine operation if they had the choice.  All the wind turbines in Australia have been forced upon the power companies that take their output.

Why do we have wind turbines?

So the question has to be asked, why do we have wind turbines in the first place?

Wind turbines are commonly considered to produce renewable energy.  This is distinct from energy sources that are once-through and thus finite. The rationale for renewable energy is that its use reduces the consumption of fossil fuels by substitution.  The rationale for that, in turn, is that fossil fuels contribute to the warming of the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect.  This last rationale goes to the source of the wind turbine problem.  So it is apposite to examine that claim.

While climate change is real in that the climate is always changing, and the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is real, the effect at the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is minuscule.

The greenhouse gasses keep the planet 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be if they weren’t in the atmosphere.  So the average temperature of the planet’s surface is 15°C instead of -15°C. Of that effect, 80% is provided by water vapour, 10% by carbon dioxide and methane, ozone and so on make up the remaining 10%.  So the warming provided by carbon dioxide is three degrees.

The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 286 parts per million. Let’s round that up to 300 parts per million to make the maths easier. You could be forgiven for thinking that if 300 parts per million produces three degrees of warming, the relationship is that every one hundred parts per million produces a degree of warming. We are adding two parts per million to the atmosphere each year, which is 100 parts per million every 50 years and, at that rate, the world would heat up at a fair clip.

The relationship is logarithmic

But the relationship isn’t arithmetic, it is logarithmic. The  University of Chicago has an online program called Modtran which allows you to put in an assumed atmospheric  carbon dioxide  content and it will  tell you how  much  atmospheric  heating that produces. It turns out that the first 20 parts per million produces half of the heating effect to date. The effect rapidly drops away as the carbon dioxide concentration increases.

By the time we get to the current level in the atmosphere of 400 parts per million, the heating effect is only 0.1°C per one hundred parts per million. At that rate, the temperature of the atmosphere might rise by 0.2°C every one hundred years.

The total atmospheric heating from carbon dioxide to date is of the order of 0.1°C.  By the time humanity has dug up all the rocks we can economically burn, and burnt them, the total heating effect from carbon dioxide might be of the order of 0.4°C. This would take a couple of centuries.  A rise of this magnitude would be lost in the noise of the climate system.  This agrees with observations which have not found any signature from carbon dioxide-related heating in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

The carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere is  actually  dangerously  low,  not  dangerously  high.   During the glacial periods of our current ice age, the level got as low as 180 parts per million.  Plant growth shuts down at 150 parts per million. Several times in the last three million years, life above sea level came within 30 parts per million of extinction due to a lack of carbon dioxide. The more humanity can increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the safer life on Earth will be.

Further to all that, belief in global warming from carbon dioxide requires a number of underlying assumptions.  One of these is that the feedback loop of increased heating from carbon dioxide causes more water vapour to be held in the atmosphere which in turns causes more heating, a runaway effect.  And that this feedback effect only starts from the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – not a higher level or a lower level, but exactly at the pre-industrial level.

Some estimates of the heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide are as high as 6.0°C for a doubling of the concentration from the pre-industrial level.  For this to be true, atmospheric heating of at least 2.0°C should have been seen to date. In the real world, there has been a temperature rise of 0.3°C in the last 35 years, as measured by satellites.  This is well short of what is predicted by global warming theory as practiced by the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and others.

This is also a far more plausible reason for the warming of the planet during the current Modern Warm Period which followed the ending of the Little Ice Age in 1900.  The energy that keeps the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun and the level and make-up of that energy does change. The Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it had been in the previous 8,000 years.  As shown by the geomagnetic Aa Index, the Sun started getting more active in the mid-19th century and the world’s glaciers began retreating at about the same time.

It is entirely rational to think that a more active Sun would result in a warmer Earth, and this is borne out by empirical observation. To wit, the increased Antarctic sea ice cover observed during the satellite period.

Arctic sea ice extent retreated for the last 20 years of the 20th century.  That is compatible with global warming for any reason.  At the same time, Antarctic sea extent increased by an amount similar to the Arctic sea ice loss. This is not possible if we accept that global warming is due to carbon dioxide.  It also means that global warming due to carbon dioxide did not cause the bulk of the warming in the rest of the planet because carbon dioxide’s effect was overwhelmed in Antarctica by some other force.

Increase in Antarctic sea ice extent

The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is entirely consistent with increased global temperatures due to high solar activity, as explained by Henrik Svensmark’s theory, which holds that high solar activity produces a lower neutron flux in the lower troposphere from intergalactic cosmic radiation, in turn providing fewer nucleation sites for cloud droplet formation and, thus, less cloud cover. Sunnier skies over Antarctica in turn mean that more solar radiation is reflected by high-albedo snow and ice instead of being absorbed in the cloud cover.  Thus Antarctica has cooled.

The rest of the world has enjoyed the best climatic conditions, and thus agricultural growing conditions, since the 13th century.  But what the Sun gives it can also take away.  Solar physicists have been warning for over a decade  that the Sun is entering a prolonged period of low activity similar to that of the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1710. Most recently, Livingstone and Penn have predicted a maximum amplitude for the next solar cycle, Solar Cycle 25, of 7.  By comparison, the previous solar cycle, Solar Cycle 23, had a maximum amplitude of 120.

The longest temperature record on the planet is the Central England Temperature Record from 1659.  Using the solar-based forecasting model developed by Dr David Evans and the Livingstone and Penn estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7, a prediction can be made of the effect on the Central England Temperature out to 2040.  The reduction in solar activity now being observed will result in temperatures returning to the levels of the mid-19th century at best, with the possibility of revisiting the lows of the 17th and 18th centuries.  Peak summer temperatures may not change much but the length of the growing season will shorten at both ends, playing havoc with crop yields.

The notion of global warming

The notion of global warming has resulted in an enormous mis-allocation of resources in some Western societies, but we can be thankful for one thing.  If it had not been for the outrageous prostitution of science in the global warming cause, then the field of climate would not have attracted the attention that has determined what is actually happening to the Earth’s climate.  Humanity would otherwise be sleepwalking into the severe cold period in train.

As demonstrated above, there is no moral basis for Australian society’s investment in wind turbines if the purpose of that investment is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a form of renewable energy.  Global warming due to carbon dioxide is of no consequence and the world is cooling anyway.

Wind turbines

WIND TURBINES may lack a moral purpose, but might there be some other good involved?  Let’s examine the claim that wind turbines provide renewable energy, thus reducing our depletion of finite energy resources.

Wind turbines are made using energy from coal at about 4 cents per kWh and provide energy thought to cost of the order of 10 cents per kWh.  In effect, they are machines for taking cheap, stable and reliable energy from coal and giving it back in the form of an intermittent and unpredictable dribble at more than twice the price.

That is one thing.  But what stops wind turbines from being renewable is that the making of wind turbines can’t be powered using energy from the wind turbines themselves! If power from wind turbines costing 10 cents per kWh was used to make more wind turbines, then the wind turbines so produced would make power at something like 25 cents per kWh.  The cost would compound away and any society that attempted to run itself on wind energy would collapse. Wind energy as a component of a power system relies upon transfer of energy at its inception from another source.  It is not renewable energy.  It is no consolation that solar power from photovoltaic panels is much worse in this respect.

That wind energy is renewable energy is the second lie on which the RET scheme is based, the first being that renewable energy is a palliative against global warming.

There is not much more that needs to be said. The RET Scheme is a monstrous misallocation of the nation’s resources and continues to make the Australian people poorer for no good reason.  Those who concocted it and voted for it have sold the Australian people into the servitude and oppression of rent-seekers to the tune of $5 billion per annum. The science and economics it is based on are no better than voodoo and witchcraft.  The wind turbines scattered around the Australian countryside are a physical manifestation of the infestation of the body politic by the self-loathing, millenarian cult of global warming.

The RET Scheme draws resources from better schemes

Unfortunately, the RET Scheme and its ilk have drawn resources from the development of energy sources that would power Australia cheaply, efficiently and with enough of a return on energy invested to maintain Australia’s high standard of living into the next millennium.

The same kind of intense interest from the wider scientific community that determined what is really happening with climate has also determined that the optimum nuclear technology for society to adopt is the thorium molten salt reactor.  Any middle-ranking industrial power, such as Australia, could develop this technology, and should do so.

Much time and treasure has been lost chasing the phantom menace of global warming.  The sooner the RET Scheme is put to rest, the sooner that the nation’s efforts can be properly directed towards our security and welfare in developing the best possible energy source if the nation is to survive and prosper.

David Archibald is a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC where his research interest is strategic energy policy.  The Institute is a graduate school for US security agencies, State Department and Department of Defense. He has published several books and a number of papers on climate science.  He has lectured on climate science in both US Senate and Congressional hearing rooms. His most recent book is Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)

============================

Energy plan puts public service before public good

by Alan Moran, Director, Deregulation, Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) March 14, 2014

THE energy white paper under preparation proclaims that government has a role in the energy industry. But it is one that is best limited to controlling natural monopoly elements within the industry. It is certainly not to provide some blueprint for the future.

A history of public ownership

Energy has an ongoing history of public ownership, at least in part stemming from misplaced notions that it is a natural monopoly and a necessity requiring government interventions. The outcome has been deleterious and has been compounded by a determination of governments to use the industry to accommodate its social, environmental and industry policies. This has transformed an inherently low-cost industry into one that now has among the world’s highest prices.

A worrying feature of the review is a prominent role given to the supposed need to maintain analytical capability within the government. This appears to be a priority to protect departmental personnel jobs that sits badly with the market-driven industry the white paper claims to be championing. The priority may be partly due to an excessive number of goals that the white paper’s “issues paper” specifies. These encompass supplying and using energy:

  • To put downward costs of business and households.
  • To grow exports.
  • To promote low emissions energy technologies.
  • To encourage the more efficient use of energy.

Whatever may be said of the first two of these stated goals, the third and fourth are in conflict and have spawned the egregious interventions in energy policy that have created a need for a white paper. The fourth also adopts the discredited hubris: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

Markets develop from the interactions of consumers with businesses, which seek to sell their goods, access inputs and reduce risks. Government’s role is to allow these processes to be pursued and to uphold the law.

A plethora of goals

Rather than a plethora of goals, the white paper should have a single focus: to allow the market to bring about efficient production of energy with interventions limited to addressing natural monopoly situations. Anything beyond that will perpetuate the weaknesses presently evident.

Energy is a vital factor in the direct wellbeing of consumers.

More important still for Australia, it is a key component of economic development. Our minerals and agricultural processing industries are natural fits to the resource endowment that ­Aust­ralia has and cheap energy is both part of that endowment and crucial to its development.

Irresponsible government actions

Irresponsible government actions have impaired the value of our energy resources. This can be seen in four key areas:

  • Retaining ownership of energy businesses in networks where such ownership is verifiably inefficient and always likely to remain so.
  • Placing taxes and regulatory imposts on energy suppliers to force them into costly measures in pursuit of government-determined efficiency, consumer consultation and greenhouse-re­­­d­­uc­­­­ing measures.
  • Impeding access to land for gas exploration and development.
  • Suppressing prices to certain customer groups, thereby weakening incentives to supply and maintain industry resilience.

Policies to rectify these impairments often entail government action, which are the cause of the problems in the first place.

In the past, as with the post-­Hilmer competition policy ­pay­ments, governments were re­warded (and occasionally punished) with regard to an agreed set of principles.

But the use of government to combat government deficiencies is oxymoronic.

Indeed, if a previous commonwealth government had attempted more forcefully to exert pressure on states to promote a goal it favoured, energy saving measures, the outcome would have been even more perverse than that which has eventuated.

The white paper’s aforementioned issues paper continues to promote market interventions in many places associated with green energy and energy efficiency.

It also has to be said that providing incentives for governments to do things that are in the interests of their own consumers is logically questionable.

A useful starting point

A useful starting point for policy, in line with the government’s deregulation initiative, is to announce the early sun-setting of all regulatory measures and discriminatory charges and taxes on energy supplies at the commonwealth level. This would be accompanied by an invitation to state governments to adopt similar programs. In the absence of such a measure the best that can be hoped for is to have the process unveil costs of poor decisions in the past as counsel for future decision-makers.

===============================

Additional articles

Inherit the Wind (and not much else) By David Archibald, Quadrant Online, 8 Feb 2015

The Rise and Fall of the EU

European countries ruled the world for centuries.  Since WWII the fall from grace has accelerated.  Now it remains to be seen how Britain’s EU exit, and mass immigration, pan out.

Note: more articles are available at the end of this post

EU is Now Deaf to Their Coming Defeat

EU is Now Deaf to Their Coming Defeat  By Thomas Luongo, Gold Goats ‘n Guns, 16 February 2020

Yanis Varoufakis once described negotiating with the European Union like you’re singing the Swedish National Anthem. No matter what proposal you put in front of them, they acted like they didn’t understand and simply reiterated terms.

But, at least then they heard something. It may have been gibberish to them, but at least sound waves made it to their ears.

Today, these people are like overwhelmed autistic kids needing noise canceling headphones to blot out the unwanted stimuli. It may be therapeutic but it doesn’t solve the situation.

Now that Brexit is complete the EU has gone one step further, blocking out the very real strategic and tactical disadvantage they are in dealing with the United Kingdom in trade deal talks.

The arrogance and intractability of the EU when it comes to negotiations is supposed to be their biggest weapon. They project a strange combination of strength and indifference that can only come from people thoroughly insulated from personal accountability for their mistakes.

Lead negotiator, the revealed to be inept, Michel Barnier has laid out his negotiating stance using the same language that was thoroughly rejected by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in October, the so-called “level playing field” of “regulatory alignment” as the basis for any kind of trade deal.

Has Barnier learned nothing from his last failure? Does he really think he can cover his ears, curl up in the corner and hope this all goes away?

Because if he does then he’s catastrophically misread the state of the game board.

Moreover, he’s convinced the European Council and Parliament that the way to ultimately win is to keep doing the same things that just failed.

Since they just overwhelmingly approved Barnier’s strict negotiating demands to the U.K. further signaling that they have no idea of the hornet’s nest they’ve just whacked with a baseball bat, oblivious to the buzzing and warnings coming from the U.K.

Mr Barnier said: “Any future agreement will need approval from MEPs. The deadline for the transitional period can be extended but the UK is still insisting on a deal being done by December 31st.”

{Tom’s response: because it’s now U.K. Law Mike, or did you miss that too?}

He again warned that if there’s no agreement by then, the UK will leave the customs union and single market and go back to WTO terms, meaning quotas and tariffs on British products.

{Tom’s response: and so what? Y’all run a trade surplus with the U.K. Or are you economically ignorant as well as stupid?}

Michel Barnier said: “I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear to certain people in the United Kingdom bearing authority that they should not kid themselves about this – there will not be general, open-ended, ongoing equivalence in financial services.”

The EU would “retain a free hand to take our own decisions”.

{Tom’s response: Free to ignore reality at your own peril}

Barnier threatening the financial sector is an empty threat to get City of London bankers and traders to pressure Johnson into standing down. They were the loudest complainers during the fight over Brexit.

But Johnson understands something Barnier refuses to admit, because, as always, he doesn’t listen he just demands. Brexit was won in spite of London. Its political power is waning.

Without the support of the Midlands and the hollowed-out industrial north, Johnson isn’t Prime Minister. Barnier tried for three years to leverage City of London and failed.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Mike Barnier, walking Einstein quote machine.

This is an empty technocratic threat issued by a career bureaucrat with an over-inflated sense of his own relevance.

The U.K. holds all the negotiating levers here and they’ve accelerated the time table while Barnier is oblivious.

Barnier has until the end of June to take off his headphones and let information into his brain that comports with reality. The collapse of the Remain coup in October was a strong message to the EU that they are vulnerable and that Barnier’s schtick is tired.

And because of this Boris Johnson has not only hardened his tone but also gone further than he did on the campaign trail, saying that even a Canada-style free trade deal may not be enough.

Now he’s invoking Australia as a proxy for a WTO-style ‘hard Brexit.’ And all Barnier can do is threaten tariffs and trade war. This is exactly the kind of idiocy that the British just fought three and a half years to divorce themselves from.

And this is coming from a political body with no hope of passing a budget this fall when a politically paralyzed Germany takes over the Presidency of the European Commission. A budget, I might add, that is staring at a €10+ billion hole thanks to the loss of the U.K.

The possibility of German political upheaval is causing the euro to crash uncontrollably. After a massive move up on the final day of January to avoid a technical breakdown the euro is not flirting with a crash to the 2017 low of $1.034

The fear here is a quick steepening of the German yield curve which is now flat to inverted out to 7 years. No wonder Mario Draghi restarted QE before he blew town to leave this mess to Christine Lagarde, without that in place there would be real trouble in European sovereign debt markets.Left of Bang: How the …Patrick Van Horne, Jas…Best Price: $12.13Buy

But a political disunion that is deaf not only to what its external critics are telling it but its internal ones as well has a limited self-life of invest-ability. Once momentum traders stop front-running the ECB and the euro’s weakness forces the unwinding of carry trades at that point someone will have to tap Barnier on the shoulder and tell him to listen to something approximating reason.

By this point, to be honest, it will likely be too late.

The Irish elections were a huge rebuke of the EU and how it handled Brexit negotiations. It was an outright embarrassment to have Sinn Fein coalesce the Irish Euroskeptic vote. And yet, the EU hasn’t learned a thing because they refuse to listen.

So what happens when we wake up one morning and Angela Merkel is no longer Chancellor of Germany, the Yellow Vests overthrow Emmanuel Macron in France or Matteo Salvini wins an Italian snap election from a jail cell in Rome?

Will they hear the populist barbarians at the gates then or will they continue to console themselves with dreams of Sweden?

=====================

This Is the New Italy

This Is the New Italy  By Attilio Moro, Strategic Culture Foundation, 1 June 2018

Sesto San Giovanni, a town on the outskirts of Milan, used to be one of the industrial capitals of Italy.

With around 200,000 inhabitants (45,000 blue collar workers, and a robust middle class), it was the headquarters of some of the most dynamic Italian companies, including Magneti Marelli, Falck, Breda and many more.

Today Sesto is an industrial desert – the factories are gone, the professional middle class has fled, many stores have shut down, and the city is trying to reinvent itself as a medical research center.

Twenty-three kilometers (14 miles) to the north of Sesto, the town of Meda was the seat of various symbols of Italian excellence: Salotti Cassina and Poltrona Frau, both of which exported high-quality furniture all over the world and employed tens of thousands of workers and designers. They fed a number of small family-based companies providing parts and highly qualified seasonal labour. Today both companies are gone.

Montezemolo: Public enemy

Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, a former chairman of Ferrari, Fiat and Alitalia, and now a public enemy because of his dismissal of the “Made in Italy” label, acquired both companies and moved them to Turkey, choosing profit over quality—and Italian jobs. Montezemolo, of aristocratic background, is a champion of Italian neoliberalism, having founded the influential “free market” think tank Italia Futura (Future Italy) in 2009.

Another victim is the town of Sora, with a population of 25,000, 80 km. (50 miles) east of Rome. Until recently Sora was an affluent commercial city, with medium-sized paper factories and hundreds of shops. Today, all of the factories are gone and 50 percent of shops have closed.

All over Italy, the neoliberal policies that led to the economic crisis and resulting social decadence have accelerated in the wake of the financial collapse of 2007.

Once The Stalingrad of Italy

Sesto San Giovanni used to be known as ‘the Italian Stalingrad’, due to the strength of its working class and the Communist Party receiving over 50 percent of the vote. Now the strongest party in town is the Lega (The League), a right wing, xenophobic party. This has been accompanied by a demographic shift, as Sesto has lost almost one third of its population, but acquired tens of thousands of immigrants, which today constitute almost 20 percent of its population.

The Italian Communist Party, once the strongest in the capitalist world, has in the meantime disappeared, together with the working class. There is also the destitution of a dwindling middle class accompanying the breakdown of the social fabric with rampant corruption. All the traditional political parties have been wiped away.

Sesto San Giovanni: Once the Italian Stalingrad

They have been replaced by the so-called ‘populists’: TheLega and the 5 Star Movement, undisputed winners of the latest elections in March, who are now in the process of trying to form a new government. The Lega expresses the frustrations of the north of Italy that is still productive (fashion, services and some high quality products), and demands lower taxes, as Italian taxes are among the highest in Europe. They also want a parallel national currency, a reduction in circulation of the Euro (which slows down exports, especially to Germany) and limits to immigration.

The 5 Star Movement, which is partly considered to be the heir of the former Communist Party but with a different social base consisting of an undifferentiated lower class replacing the disappearing working class. It advocates a moralization of the political parties and a universal basic income of 750 euros per month ($875) for the poorest to reduce the effects of the social disaster which took place in the south of the country in the last 10 years: 20 percent unemployment, affecting 40 percent of young people, making the mafia and organized crime the biggest ‘employers’ in the most critical southern regions.

This is the new Italy. The old one, the Italy of Fiat, Cassina, small family-run businesses, the Italy of the Christian Democrats, the Communist Party and vibrant working-class culture is no more.

==================

Previous articles

The ‘Breakaway Civilisation’ And The Other World You’re Not Told About

This post complements the post ‘Which New World Order?’ Numerous articles, books and videos have described a world that includes a ‘breakaway civilisation’, inhabited by various ‘aliens’ as well as humans. This universe has always existed in parallel to the world we have been told about since birth, but has been kept a deep secret from the 99.999% uninitiated who are not ‘read in’. But the evidence it exists is compelling, such as many statements made by US President Eisenhower. A useful starting point is to read Section 3.1 of the book ‘They’re Conning You!’, copied below (See the post Book Reviews to download).

The following article by Kerry Cassidy extends way past where Section 3.1 finishes.

Then a series of interviews by Kerry Cassidy with A’Shayana Deane presents 6 hours of mind-blowing information that provides explanations about the past and current history of the Universe and the Earth, all on behalf of the Guadian Alliance.

Editor’s note: it seems the danger point expected in 2012 was avoided, as explained by A’Shayana in the following workshop: https://www.arhayas.com/pages/dispensation-dec2012 . A simplified summary is provided in the text below.

Note: this post is a work-in-progress. Much more material will be added including updates of older material noted in this post.

3.1 Aliens / Extra Terrestrials and their UFOs have been on earth for aeons.

This section summarises historical issues relevant to the total picture of our world at present.

Each factor is expanded later in the book, and a range of support is provided in appendices for further study. Inevitably, there are overlaps and some duplication between several of the points below. But let’s start with the very big picture: the whole universe.

By way of introducing this subject, consider the conclusions noted at the start of Appendix E, Ancient Civilisations:

There are many compelling articles, books, myths, videos etc. that explain how aliens from other worlds and dimensions have visited and stayed on our earth for aeons, possibly millions of years. 

It seems likely that aliens in some way created or modified human and living creatures’ DNA, probably to extend man’s abilities as alien servants.

These stories are very different from ‘official’ and learnt views, although much is supported by stories in ancient texts, including the Bible.

The overall picture presented suggests that aliens and/or their hybrids were, and possible are now, the major determinants in what happened in the past, and likely in modern societies.

The major issue is to what extent aliens and/or their followers such as hybrids, are planning our future, in particular a new world order.

There is overwhelming evidence that aliens, or extra-terrestrials, have been visiting our planet for at least tens of thousands of years, and quite possibly hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of years.  The most compelling evidence relates to the large number of constructions such as the pyramids and other structures around the world that would have required technologies unknown to current science to build them.  The only realistic possibility is that these technologies came from ETs in some currently unknown form.  As well, there is overwhelming evidence that ETs and UFO have been regular visitors to earth since at least the mid-1940s.

There is also ample evidence across our solar system of cataclysmic and catastrophic destruction events. The asteroid belt, for example, maybe the remains of an exploded planet. The known planets are scarred from incredible impacts and teeter in their orbits due to causes heretofore inadequately explained. Rejecting the naturalist and materialist assumptions of catastrophism forwarded by other researchers.

The unfortunate part about the phenomenon of extra-terrestrial (ETs) and unidentified flying objects (UFOs) is that the world rarely sees evidence for it presented in a credible way. Nearly all mainstream media outlets, news anchors, and journalists do more harm than good, discrediting a topic that has plenty of proof behind it. Either it’s not discussed at all, or it’s done through ridicule.

Yet the very first Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) told the New York Times in 1960: “behind the scenes, high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs, but through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.”

A brief search will reveal hundreds of people and documents that have shown, beyond a doubt, that UFOs exist, and that some of them could be extraterrestrial, and others, our own advanced technology.

The documents show objects travelling at unattainable speeds and performing manoeuvres that no known aircraft can perform. Descriptions come from people including high ranking military personnel, politicians, astronauts, and academics from different fields telling us that we are not alone and that this is known at the highest levels of government, or those who puppet the government.

A former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee stated: “I do know that whatever the Air Force has on the subject is going to remain highly classified.”  An Apollo 14 astronaut stated: “there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.”

One of the most shocking and infamous events in US history was the assassination of President John F Kennedy on 22 November 1963 in Dallas.

In this historic and powerful Dark Journalist episode, 30 November 2017, host Daniel Liszt welcomes Watergate Lawyer and Author Douglas Caddy. Caddy is well-known for being the Attorney of the Watergate burglars who mysteriously broke into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) looking for secrets that have never been revealed. (The full video can be seen at: http://www.darkjournalist.com/s-caddy2.php.) The interview text is below.  Much more material on this appalling affair is in Appendix I. The key point is that JFK knew about the US shadow government and military/industrial complex’s then-recent involvement with aliens and their technology.  Kennedy planned to share this with Russian President Krushchev and the rest of the world in order to progress knowledge and advance humanity.  For that, his shadow government and successor President, Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) had him assassinated in order to keep these space secrets to themselves:

‘Caddy was close personal friends with ultra-CIA insider and SuperSpy agent E. Howard Hunt, who used Caddy to represent his many non-intel projects, but later lured him in to represent the Watergate burglars while keeping his own role hidden. In their final meeting Hunt shared never before heard details of the JFK Assassination with Caddy, including the fact that the Watergate burglary was instigated as a mission to obtain vital documents regarding hidden evidence in the DNC that revealed details of a massive conspiracy to assassinate JFK. In a bombshell twist Hunt then revealed that JFK was killed for his attempts to expose the reality of the Alien Presence and share it with our Russian Cold War adversaries.

Since the original UFO flap of 1947, the US had created a secret group sometimes referred to as ‘Majestic Twelve’ or ‘MJ12′ to study the phenomena and to reverse-engineer technology that was recovered. This secret MJ12 group began to grow beyond its mandate and eventually slipped away from presidential supervision and formed a Breakaway group operating inside the National Security State via elements in the CIA. When Kennedy discovered this covert group operating outside the purview of the President he instituted a number of initiatives to regain control over the advanced research and technology achieved with knowledge of the Alien Presence. One of these initiatives was to share our knowledge of the UFO Phenomena with our Russian Cold War enemies in the Soviet Union and institute a joint Space Program/Moon Mission to avert a new arms race in space.

Documented official memos from JFK, including National Security Action Memorandum 271, direct NASA to institute a new policy of cooperation in space exploration with the Russians, another memo, recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, shows JFK told the CIA to hand over all data concerning UFOs with an emphasis on “High Threat” cases. These memos were dated November 12th, 1963, only ten days before JFK was killed in Dallas, Texas and are further evidence that he was assassinated because of his exposing of the UFO secret.

The UFO Control Group were not going to let him show the world what the National Security State decided was their own private discovery. They were willing to remove a sitting President to maintain their UFO Technology Secrecy.’

Theodore C. Loder III, PhD Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire stated: “Intelligent beings from other star systems have been and are visiting our planet Earth. They are variously referred to as Visitors, Others, Star People, ETs, etc. . . . They are visiting Earth NOW; this is not a matter of conjecture or wistful thinking.”

Well-known aerospace journalist James Goodall, an accomplished speaker who wrote for publications such as Jane’s Defence Weekly, Aviation Week & Space Technology, and Intervavia, interviewed many people from the classified black budget world. He did all of this while being the Associate Curator at the Pacific Aviation Museum. According to Goodall, and the people he has spoken to, “we have things out there that are literally out of this world, better than Star Trek or what you see in the movies.” Goodall also claims to have known Ben Rich, the second director of Lockheed Skunkworks, very well. In a video interview, Goodall stated that he spoke to Rich approximately 10 days before he died: “About ten days before he died, I was speaking to Ben on the telephone at USC medical centre in LA. And he said, ‘Jim, we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend.”

Another source for Ben Richs’ comments came from Jan Harzan, a senior executive with IBM, along with Tom Keller, an aerospace engineer who has worked as a computer systems analyst for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They discuss a talk Ben gave some time ago. On March 23, 1993, at a UCLA School of Engineering talk where he was presenting a general history of Sunk Works, he said: “We now know how to travel to the stars. There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars and it won’t take a lifetime to do it. It is time to end all the secrecy on this, as it no longer poses a national security threat, and make the technology available for use in the private sector. There are many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in the black and not see the light of day. We now have the technology to take ET home.” He believes that carefully protected technology has been co-opted by an as-yet-unknown group, and the sequestration of this technology has provided this organization a great deal of leverage in global politics, finance, and international conflicts over the past five decades.

In 2013, top American astronomers gathered in front of Congress to let them know that ‘extraterrestrial life exists — without question’. They cited the sheer size of the universe as their most important proof, emphasizing that there are trillions of stars out there, with one in every five most likely harbouring an Earth-like planet.

Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at California’s SETI Institute stated: “The number of habitable worlds in our galaxy is certainly in the tens of billions, minimum, and we haven’t even talked about the moons. And the number of galaxies we can see, other than our own, is about 100 billion.”

At least a dozen NASA astronauts have made similar comments such as Dr Edgar Mitchell.  Dr Brian O’Leary, former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor said: “There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been monitoring us for a very long time. That their appearance is bizarre from any type of traditional materialistic western point of view. That these visitors use the technologies of consciousness, they use toroids, they use co-rotating magnetic disks for their propulsion systems, that seems to be a common denominator of the UFO phenomenon.” – “In my opinion, I think they were worried that it would panic the public so they started telling lies about it. And then I think they had to tell another lie to cover their first lie, now they don’t know how to get out of it. Now it’s going to be so embarrassing to admit that all these administrations have told so many untruths, it would be embarrassing getting out of it. There are a number of extraterrestrial vehicles out there cruising around.”

Some of the most extraordinary statements about UFOs and extraterrestrials come from people who have held some of the highest positions known — those who would be in a position to know about possible extraterrestrial encounters. Former head of CIA Roscoe Hillenkoetterm said: “Behind the scenes, high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned ab