GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread


TB Fanatic

Financial Blowout Ahead: Lobotomized Economists Clash On The Deck Of The Titanic

SUNDAY, JUN 13, 2021 - 11:00 PM
Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Under the new world order of “stakeholder capitalism” citizens will learn to own nothing and be happy...

As the geniuses running the western financial bubble sometimes called an “economy” continue to double down on their obsession to pump a dead financial system with ever more trillions in stimulus spending, arguments are raging among brainwashed economists living in denial over the oncoming systemic collapse.

The thought of engineers on the Titanic passionately arguing over whether they should accelerate or decelerate the speed of the boat whose hull has long been torn to shreds by an iceberg comes to mind.

On one side of the debate, figures like U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Fed Chair Jerome Powell champion an emerging new wave of high interests as “a plus for society’s point of view” in order to counteract the increasing rates of inflation sweeping across every sector of the economy. This camp asserts that this spike in interest rates should not be done immediately however, and only begin in 2023, and until then interest rates should be kept at near zero percent.

On the other side of the debate, economists among Germany’s largest bank scream that waiting until 2023 is deadly. Not a second should be lost before increasing interest rates now in order to stop a “time bomb” from destroying both the USA and the world. On June 7, Deutsche Bank Chief Economist David Folkerts-Landau wrote passionately that Washington’s decision to wait until 2023 before raising interest rates “could create a significant recession and set off a chain of financial distresses around the world” leading to “a time bomb” waiting to explode… unless interest rates were hiked up to 20% just as they had been done in 1980 by then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker which saw interest rates collapse from 12.5% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1982.

Both sides however, are either completely ignorant or outright liars trying to distract citizens and policy makers from the real systemic nature of the oncoming meltdown that can only be dealt with if certain fundamental facts of recent history are kept in mind.

Why is Inflation going to Skyrocket?
Since a pandemic induced nations to lockdown their economies, rescue packages and unlimited money printing to keep people from literally starving, and banks from collapsing has become a new normal. $24 trillion dollars in COVID related debts have been generated internationally, while U.S. Federal Reserve balance sheets have doubled over the same period to $8 trillion with increasing rates of liquidity injections flushed into the Too Big to Fail banks since September 2019. So far, consumer price inflation has risen by 4.2% in 12 months, but based on the obvious reality of $28 trillion of totally unpayable U.S. debt, sustaining a $1.2 quadrillion derivatives bubble time bomb alongside the breakdown of supply chains and a dysfunctional green infrastructure program pushed by Biden, the runaway threat of inflation and even hyperinflation is firmly (or should be) on everyone’s mind.

Now if Deutsche Bank’s Folkerts-Landau was talking about the insane money printing disassociated from any systemic restructuring of the over-bloated Too Big to Fail zombie banks or serious recovery program, then he should be applauded for raising the spectre of unbounded inflation. His nation did after all have a direct experience with this disastrous policy back in 1923 when hyperinflation tore the German economy to shreds and set the stage for the rise of Nazism shortly thereafter.

Sadly, both Folkerts-Landau and Yellen are instead pushing policies that will not only accelerate hyperinflation a century after Weimar, but usher in a new central bankers’ dictatorship that had only been subverted in 1933 due to the fortuitous intervention of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

So What Did Volcker Do?
Since economists are told repeatedly that Volcker’s interest rate hikes of 1979-1982 saved the U.S. economy, let’s look at what really happened and why Volcker described his philosophy as a “controlled disintegration”.

While inflation did indeed spread across the USA in the 1970s, it is worth asking: why did this actually happen and did Volcker’s reforms have anything to do with solving that problem? Or did both the problem and its nominal solution drive a singular agenda of controlled destruction of the USA now playing out four decades later?

For one, the shift away from industrial long term development with the 1971 floating of the U.S. dollar off of the gold reserve standard went a long way to turning a once-forward thinking productive, manufacturing-driven economy into a consumer cult, post-industrial waste. This “post industrial” age was characterized by outsourced industries relying ever more on increased rates of imports of things the USA once made for itself. A FIRE economy (of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate speculation) increasingly took over the once powerful manufacturing sector.

Agro-Industrial production was replaced by service sector jobs as the USA became ever more reliant on cheap imports made from China, Mexico and other poor nations who were expected to remain labor intensive sweat shops for eternity.

This detachment of the “valuation” of the dollar from all physical measurable standards went a long way to killing the buying power and raising inflation as monetary circulation increased ever more by speculation on oil, currencies or other goods that often had no connection with reality. Investment rates into cutting edge science both in the atomic realm of fusion and the macro realm of space exploration were cut off drastically (see graphs) as general vital infrastructure maintenance and improvement collapsed drastically across all OECD nations trapped in the “new post-industrial normal”.

Non-military related science R & D also saw a collapse during this period from 2.5% of GDP in 1971 to a mere 0.4% of GDP in 2020 (see graph).

Deregulation and market liberalization castrated the role of the sovereign nation state ever more from 1971 onward, as “laissez faire” policies dominated a once-protectionist landscape. Rather than continuing the successful practice of “parity pricing” which defined the real growth of western nations during the 25 post-WW2 years, the markets run by speculators looking only towards maximizing profit defined the prices of goods.

Last but not least, oil price increases of 400% during the 1973 OPEC crisis is admitted to have played a big role driving the 1973-79 inflation, but as researcher William Engdahl demonstrated in his 1992 Century of Oil, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had more of a role in manufacturing this crisis from scratch by keeping hundreds of tankers replete with petrol from being unloaded in the USA and facilitating the 400% increase with the assistance of several high level oil ministers in the Middle East beholden to Kissinger. In recent years, Saudi Arabia’s former OPEC minister at the time corroborated Engdahl’s research stating:
“I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.”
Putting the Trilateral Commission into Perspective
This shift of the U.S. economy from its former role as an industrial producer economy to a consumer cult of speculation and monetarism was accompanied by a broader international shift then being orchestrated by a cabal of misanthropic technocrats managing an organization known as the Trilateral Commission founded in 1973 by Chase Manhattan President David Rockefeller III and a sociopathic grand strategist named Zbigniew Brzsinski.

The aim of the Trilateral Commission was to destroy the sovereign manufacturing base of both the USA and international developing sector alike.
For anyone who might consider this paranoid “conspiracy theorizing”, it is useful to be reminded that among the highest echelons of the U.S. executive branch under President Carter included members such as Brzezinski, Walter Mondale (Vice President), Harold Brown (Defense Secretary), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State), Michael Blumenthal (Treasury Secretary), James Schlesinger (Energy Czar) and Paul Volcker himself as Fed Chair. Henry Kissinger was also a leading member of this group.

Among the many goals of the Trilateral Commission laid out Brzezinski in his 1970 Manifesto “Between Two Ages” was the need to drive the transition of society towards what Brzezinski referred to as the “technetronic era” saying:
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
During a 1975 Trilateral Commission study called Crisis in Democracy, overseen by Zbigniew, Clash of Civilizations ideologue Samuel Huntington wrote: “we have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lack authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices that will be necessary”.

So what sort of sacrifices did these Trilateral Commission technocrats think necessary in a healthy society liberated from its foolish belief in scientific and technological progress that animated the policy outlook of such rifraf as Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Charles De Gaulle or Bobby Kennedy?

This is where Volcker steps in.

Part 1 of 2


TB Fanatic
Part 2 of 2
The Meaning of ‘Controlled Disintegration’
In 1978, faced with unbounded inflation, Paul Volcker spoke at a conference at Warwick University London stating that “a controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object in the 1980s”.

Upon ascending to the chair of the Fed a year later, he wasted no time in applying this program. Not only did he render available credit impossible for many small and medium enterprises by raising interest rates to 20%, Volcker also ensured that third world nations then being sucked back into a neocolonial debt slavery under the IMF and World Bank economic hitmen, would be sucked into ever greater rates of unpayable debts as a new form of slavery. Between 1979-1982, third world debt skyrocketed from 40-70% across the board leading to a major debt crisis.

During this period U.S. agricultural output collapsed, metal cutting machine tools fell by 45%, automobile production fell by 44.3% and steel production fell by 49.4% as bankruptcies skyrocketed leaving only mega-corporations strong enough to pay the draconian rates while absorbing small bankrupted companies and farms like a modern day Borg consuming ever greater rates of cheap labor and cheap resources from poor nations.

To understand how these countries remained poor and exploitable, one need only visit the Malthusian State Department/CIA Report authored by Henry Kissinger in 1974 called NSSM-200 that called for a total depopulation program targeting 14 poor nations then desirous of industrial growth. Those targeted included India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. Kissinger’s logic was simple: If these nations develop, their populations will grow. If their populations grow they will use their resources. BUT since it is in the strategic interests of the USA to use those resources, these nations must be kept down.

Nationalist leaders among those target nations who had a different idea were targeted for assassination or regime change throughout the 1980s.

Back in the USA, Paul Volcker additionally took aim at commercial banks by forcing vast increases in reserve requirements making lending additionally difficult (although speculation in investment banks were facilitated with the Garn-St. Germaine Act of 1982). This act and accompanying financial de-regulation during this period of “Reaganomics” led the way to the new age of universal banking beginning with Thatcher’s Big Bang in 1986, the end of Canada’s Four Pillars that same year and finally the killing of Glass-Steagall in 1999. The dream of social Darwinists of an unregulated world of each against all where only the strongest and fittest and most sociopathic survive was now real. In the Soviet Union, this process of nation stripping and deregulation that took decades to wreck havoc on western economies was accelerated in the space of a decade of shock therapy. In China, where agents of Soros and the CIA like Zhao Ziyang (Prime Minister and CCP General Secretary from 1987-89) attempted to impose liberalizing reforms like a Chinese Gorbachev, the rape was luckily stopped before a Russian model could be imposed.

With Glass-Steagall out of the way, commercial and investment banks could unite to form “the ultimate, all-powerful, many-headed financial conglomerate” as outlined by Lord Jacob Rothschild in 1983 (2).

In 2001, as Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Islamicist monstrosity created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan had been incubated throughout the 1990s, a new program of never-ending wars in the Middle East was launched. While the Middle East was turned inside out under a new age of war, the financial services sector avoided several near blowouts in 1997, 1998 and 2000 (with the collapse of the dot com/Y2K bubble). This was done by deregulating over-the-counter derivatives which turned a $70 trillion time bomb (in 2001) into a $650 trillion time bomb in 2008 when the housing market collapsed.

While opportunities then existed to impose Glass-Steagall and break up the banks as had been done earlier by FDR in 1933, hyperinflationary money printed was chosen instead resulting in another 12 years of insanity as the bubble continued to expand and the physical economic productive base continued to atrophy.

Today, we sit on not one bubble concentrated in housing prices, or oil, or currencies, but rather a multitude of bubbles in literally everything from commodities, bitcoin, housing, commercial real estate, bundled student debts, automotive loans, and the over-valued U.S. currency itself.

The COVID Pandemic did not “cause” the current systemic crisis as many fools have parroted for over a year, but has merely served as cover to obscure the real systemic causes of the long-awaited collapse and accelerate the controlled disintegration of the system as the world is prepared to transition into a “new technetronic age” which has come to be dubbed a “Great Reset” or “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

We are told by the likes of Klaus Schwab, or World Economic Forum trustees Mark Carney, Christine Lagarde, and Chrystia Freeland that the age of free market capitalism which reined from 1971-2020 has come to an end, and that a new epoch of “green finance” under a decarbonizing world is upon us. Under this new world order of “stakeholder capitalism” citizens will learn to own nothing and be happy, while polluting companies who commit climate sins will be choked of all credit.

As former Bank of England head Mark Carney recently wrote of the new age of “net zero” in his new book Values Building a Better World for All, (which many of recognized as a precursor to his replacement for Canada’s Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister):
“It could be generations before the gains of the fourth industrial revolution are widely shared. In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest”.
Klaus Schwab has publicly fantasized of this new age of human-machine merging of microchipped brains interfacing with the global net, and Tony Blair has giddily said that “vaccination is, in the end, going to be your route to liberty”.

So, while that story might sound a tad bleak, there remains only tiny obstacle to the successful implementation of this anti-human program.

This obstacle is located in the Greater Eurasian Partnership led by Russia and China and joined by 135 nations of the world that have signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative. These are nations who would rather have a multipolar future vectored around large scale industrial growth than be sacrificed on the alter of Gaia by a technocratic neo-Malthusian priesthood. This multipolar paradigm operates under a financial and geopolitical philosophy at total odds with the closed, entropic obsession of the forces associated with Kissinger, Blair, Carney or Schwab, and that is a very good thing not only for the Eurasian world, but for nationalist forces within the west as well.


TB Fanatic

Enjoy Your Gruel: Understanding the Deliberate Agenda of Our Ruling Class

After Trump’s presidency, the struggles of the middle class remain. Their opponents are eager for collective punishment.

By Christopher Roach

June 12, 2021
If you pay attention to recent discussions of social and economic change, much of the rhetoric attempts to normalize what used to be considered unmistakable marks of poverty. Rather than living in a home with a family, you are supposed to embrace the child-free life and see the benefits of a pod or a tiny home.

Instead of meat, which is now scarce and expensive, you are going to eat the bugs and enjoy them.

Electricity itself may prove scarce, but this is the price of reducing global warming. Video games and travel—ephemeral things that do not last—are offered as substitutes for the old fruits of a free market economy: a job, a home, and economic independence.

Culture makers and political leaders have moved away from talk about the American Dream and towards preparing us for privation. Biden’s speeches often have this quality. While he’s bragging now about gains in jobs, he also speaks in very dark terms about the need for collective sacrifice and the country’s uncertain future.

The coronavirus episode deepened this pessimistic mood. While government workers and the Zoom-capable professional classes adapted, many in the private sector had to do without. Many people lost wages, jobs, family members, and their sanity. It has been, for most Americans, a terrible year.

In its wake, we are told that we live in an uncertain and dangerous world, beset by public health crises, global warming, and cyber-attacks on infrastructure and the financial system. The only solution is the Great Reset and to Build Back Better.

Fear Mongering Encourages Demands for Government Action
It is noteworthy that all of these warnings have the same basic message: this is a dangerous world, and safety is attainable only if the government and oligarchs work together. At the same time, it is also hard to ignore how crises appear on a regular schedule to justify this revolution.

For example, while periodic and inconvenient hacking attempts have happened for over 20 years, recently a large gasoline distributor was taken down, which created gas shortages and panic on the East Coast. This is something new. Then, miraculously (and suspiciously) all the money turned up in a bitcoin wallet in the foreign province of . . . California?!?

A number of recent reports warn of cyberattack threats to the financial sector, in which half or more of our national wealth is stored electronically. The managerial elite in big corporations, the media, and the national security sector have called for more consolidation of power to deal with these threats. As a recent World Economic Forum report stated, “A critical situation cannot be tackled by an organization or a lone individual. . . . This situation can be prevented by promoting collaboration between the public and private sectors and law enforcement agencies.” Under the rubric of a “Great Reset” or “Building Back Better,” authentically fascist solutions—like regulators and enterprises working out the new rules cooperatively—are supposed to further the public good.

In case it’s not obvious, the whole point of regulators is that those being regulated will not do this on their own. The private sector and regulators have an adversarial relationship. The regulators are supposed to enforce laws to promote the good of the general public, not divide the market among regulated entities or encourage them to hobnob in Jackson Hole where they can fix prices, hurt consumers, and otherwise squeeze out small competitors.

I realize this concept of regulation is aspirational and glosses over a lot. But the so-called Great Reset heralds a return to the atmosphere of the 1930s, where big enterprises divided markets, set prices, and advanced their private institutional interests, while pretending to further the public good.

Inflation Increases Dependency on Government
The rapid debasement of the currency also relates to the general message of “expect less.” While spreading around inflated currency would seem to spread the wealth, ultimately it amounts to taking the same sized pie and cutting it into more pieces. This, among other reasons, is why houses and meat and plywood and gasoline and a bunch of other things are suddenly two times or more expensive than they were last year.

Inflation ultimately destroys most kinds of wealth and disincentivizes saving. It makes life even more chaotic and unpredictable for the average Joe. When fueled by government programs and transfer payments, it also has a social and political cost: it permits the government to pick winners and losers, and it degrades politics into a crude war over the spoils. After all, there are advantages to being first at the till in receiving inflated dollars. This practice increases the power of government in absolute terms, while encouraging bribery of one kind or another since the stakes have become so large.

Far from bringing the country together, the larger government role in the economy promised by the Great Reset will amplify existing tensions because politics, like economics, is becoming a winner-take-all affair.

The party in power will have more to do with designating who will thrive and who will be crushed.
We have already seen certain companies face immediate consequences, such as the Keystone Pipeline workers laid off due to Biden’s executive order. This company won’t be the last.

The Great Reset is a War on the Middle Class
I’ve hardly paid attention to any of the recent legislative happenings, including the enormous stimulus and infrastructure bills, because almost all of these laws will only affect me indirectly. I didn’t receive any of the stimulus payments, nor did I get a benefit from some of the new tax credits. In this sense, I am typical of much of the middle class: my chief relationship to the government is in paying for it.

But the details will matter a lot among the more vulnerable echelons of the middle and working classes. For them, the government and its programs and their rules will decide who sinks into poverty. Obamacare is a typical example. For some of the working poor it was a real help, allowing essentially free Cadillac care for those making several multiples of the official poverty line. But for families of four making a modest household wage of $60K or above, they hit the “subsidy cliff” and had to pay full freight.

In an atmosphere where we are being told there will be less to go around, what remains, and how and to whom it gets distributed, will be in the hands of government bureaucrats and their helpers in the vast human resources bureaucracies of large corporations. These officials will be guided not by neutral rules, but by managerial class concerns for a “new equilibrium among political, economic, social and environmental systems toward common goals.”

These are not freestanding policies; they should be considered in light of the anti-white race talk of the last few years. When both are viewed together, one must conclude that Democrats are basically resigned to the fact that a lot of poverty is coming, that this poverty will further our collective good, that the extreme wealth accumulations of tech oligarchs and Wall Street are off limits, and that the government will be able to rescue some from falling into the ranks of the poor. To state the obvious, whites, particularly noncompliant whites outside of the professional classes, won’t be among those they are interested in saving.

Consider Biden’s unconstitutional restaurant initiative. Recently struck down by a federal court, it set up a fund exclusively to aid black-owned restaurants harmed by the public health rules and economic conditions that occurred in response to COVID-19. Similar race-specific initiatives arose within the private sector.

Admittedly, the entire restaurant sector got completely walloped last year. Yelp reports that 100,000 businesses that closed due to the COVID-19 shutdowns—60 percent of all those that closed—would not reopen. They all need help, and most restaurateurs would not have failed but for heavy-handed government measures. Even so, the government that took away their livelihoods is only giving it back to selected, preferred racial groups. Tough luck white guys! Enjoy your Tiny House and Impossible Burger.

The Left rightly may be described as using race to divide the lower classes, while pillaging the most politically palatable source of spoils for its redistributionist policies: the mostly white middle class.

In other words , this is a high-low coalition engaged in a pincer movement. The top includes the very wealthy, along with the professional and managerial class. The latter includes economically privileged government workers, along with the army of lobbyists, contractors, and other insider industries. In addition to keeping their jobs in these uncertain times, the bureaucrats obviously stand to benefit by manning the tools of redistribution, which are aimed almost exclusively at the non-governmental private sector. (No one on the Left has suggested cutting government jobs or government pay to help the poor.)

The oligarchic class benefits because it is largely immune to social change, when it is not benefiting directly.

This is why there is no talk of redistribution in general, such as a wealth tax aimed at billionaires. This is also why large-scale immigration, racial strife, and artificially engineered diversity remain core organizing principles for the Left. These policies serve the interests of corporate oligarchs, even as they are dressed up as humanitarian gestures. These conditions push down wages and prevent unionization and other forms of economic solidarity among the middle and working classes.

On the other side of the squeeze is the low part of the coalition, the clients: students, the urban poor, the NGOs, and the recipients of government welfare. In addition to being riled up by defamatory lies about America, they are kept vulnerable and eager for assistance through the managed scarcity that is at the core of the Great Reset Agenda.

The Left and the middle class are in an abusive relationship. But there is no honeymoon period. Rather, the middle class is told explicitly and repeatedly that it is going to suffer. The Left is managing their expectations downward; and along with those declining expectations comes a lax attitude towards crime, constant criticism and abuse, the destruction of historical memory, and economic warfare all serving to weaken their dignity and sense of ownership in their society.

Donald Trump appealed to the American middle class’ sense of identity and channeled their grievances.

Where other conservative politicians preached a false unity of interest between the middle class and the mega-rich, he recognized on trade and immigration and middle class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that their interests were often at odds.

After Trump’s presidency, the struggles of the middle class remain. Their opponents are eager for collective punishment. By electing Trump, the American middle class rejected Obama’s legacy and reversed many of his signature achievements. In the Left’s eyes, this was a collective crime, proof of selfishness and atavistic racism. When the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the president talk about the threat of “white supremacy,” they’re talking about every white Trump voter. They’re talking about you.

The first step in politics is to understand who is a friend and who is the enemy. All of these developments—the pod propaganda and torn-down statues and Great Reset—are related. They are part of a scheme to elevate some at the expense of others. More precisely, the Left aims to build its new edifice on top of the middle class, which will be cut down and plowed over in the process.


TB Fanatic

Al Gore Lobbies Joe Biden to Kill Another Pipeline; Spend Billions on Green New Deal Priorities

Vice President Joe Biden and former Vice President Al Gore, right, wave to the crowd after Gore introduced Biden at the annual Tennessee Democratic Party Jackson Day on Friday, July 16, 2010 in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
AP Photo/Mark Humphrey
CHARLIE SPIERING11 Jun 20213,681

Former Vice President Al Gore privately urged President Joe Biden to keep hundreds of billions of spending to subsidize green industries and even kill another proposed oil pipeline.

Gore called Biden personally and demanded he include billions of climate spending in his infrastructure bill, according to a report in the Washington Post.

Gore was encouraged to contact Biden by John Podesta, the former manager for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign. Podesta’s influence has waned sharply after Clinton lost to former President Donald Trump in 2016.

Gore continues lobbying for more government spending to combat climate change, a mantle he claimed after losing his own race for president to George W. Bush in 2000.

Biden proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in climate spending in his infrastructure plan, including over a trillion in green energy tax credits, $274 billion to build and “retrofit” affordable housing, $174 billion for electric vehicles, $100 billion for improving electric grids, $16 billion to plug oil and gas wells, $10 billion for a “Civilian Climate Corps,” and $5 billion for climate research.

Leftist Senate Democrats have also ramped up demands for green spending.

“No climate, no deal,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) wrote on social media on Wednesday.

Senate Republicans are opposed to Biden’s planned spending on green energy, arguing that the money should focus on traditional infrastructure projects like roads and bridges.

Gore also urged Biden to stop the Byhalia Pipeline in Tennessee, a project targeted by “environmental justice” activists who claim it will risk the drinking water of the black community in Memphis.

Leftist celebrity activists Jane Fonda and Danny Glover have also rallied opposition to the pipeline.


TB Fanatic

The Great Reset and Transhumanism Movement

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
June 14, 2021

Video on website 1:14:36 min

  • The COVID pandemic has ushered in a new era of biodigital convergence; the most freedom in this new era will be awarded to those who are vaccinated and opt in to synthetic enhancement
  • The long-term agenda is not about COVID-19 or even the implementation of a biosecurity state but could be used for the extinction of homo sapiens — the end of humanity as you know it
  • “Exploring Biodigital Convergence” is a terrifying report by Policy Horizons Canada, which explores in detail “what happens when biology and digital technology merge”
  • In the coming years, biodigital technologies may become integrated into everyday life the way digital technologies are now; this will redefine what it means to be “human”
  • Synthetic enhancements could lead to “genobility,” in which certain people have superior genes or transhuman traits and the benefits that go along with them, while the “less superior” humans, like the unvaccinated, are awarded fewer rights
The COVID pandemic has ushered in a new era of biodigital convergence — one that’s been in the works for decades but is now accelerating in the name of public health and new normalcy. As I said June 7, 2021, the most freedom in this new era will be awarded to those who are vaccinated.1

Speaking with The Andrew Narr Show, Tony Blair, former prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, affirmed this, stating, “It’s important to distinguish between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Giving the vaccinated the most amount of freedoms.”2

Freedom, however, isn’t something to be granted to you by authorities in exchange for obedience, but in this altered reality segregation between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is increasing.

Those who comply will earn their freedom back, setting the mindset that by getting vaccinated and going along with government’s industrial process you’re being enhanced, while if you do not you’re holding society back, are noncompliant and may be a threat to others. As James Corbett covers in The Corbett Report above, we’re in the midst of:3

“… the implementation of a medical martial law system presided over by unappointed, unelected,

unaccountable public health authorities who now have literal control over your everyday movements, who are constructing a total surveillance grid that comes with it the prospect of not just vaccine passports but health passes generally, which will be used to restrict your ability to access public life and that you will be guilty until proven innocent of infection under this new paradigm that is being installed.”

This is only the beginning. The next step isn’t only about freedom but synthetic enhancement that will redefine what it means to be human. In all likelihood, opting in to biodigital convergence will come with rewards while resisting or rejecting will come with penalties.

‘Your Guide to the Great Convergence’
I warned about the COVID pandemic ushering in the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which has been in discussion since at least 20164 and “is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.”

The long-term agenda is not about COVID-19 or even the implementation of a biosecurity state but, as noted by Corbett, will be used for the extinction of homo sapiens — the end of humanity as you know it.
This isn’t conjecture. The notion of transhumanism is being actively researched and explored. In an article titled “Looking Forward to the End of Humanity,” The Wall Street Journal noted that COVID-19 “has spotlighted the promise and peril of ‘transhumanism,’ the idea of using technology to overcome sickness, aging and death.”5

It talks about the need for “technological protection” to protect our species from being wiped out from nuclear war, asteroid collision, a technological accident or a pandemic. The problem is that, in so doing, humans are no longer “human,” at least, not the way you think of them now. According to The Wall Street Journal:6

“Ultimately, however, the hope is that we won’t just use computers — we’ll become them. Today, cognitive scientists often compare the brain to hardware and the mind to the software that runs on it. But a software program is just information, and in principle there’s no reason why the information of consciousness has to be encoded in neurons.

The Human Connectome Project, launched in 2009 by the National Institutes of Health, describes itself as ‘an ambitious effort to map the neural pathways that underlie human brain function.’ If those pathways could be completely mapped and translated into digital 0s and 1s, the data could be uploaded to a computer, where it could survive indefinitely.”

The human/computer metaphor was also used in a 2017 TED talk by Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, who referred to mRNA technology as “the software of life.”7 Moderna, which was founded on the concept of being able to modify human biological function through genetic engineering, went on to develop one of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines being pushed in the mass vaccination campaign.

The potentially permanent modification of humans is an existential threat to the human species, according to Corbett, yet hardly anyone is talking about it.

‘Exploring Biodigital Convergence’
To get an idea of what’s on the horizon, look no further than “Exploring Biodigital Convergence,” a terrifying report by Policy Horizons Canada, which explores in detail “what happens when biology and digital technology merge.”8 Policy Horizons Canada is a Canadian government organization, whose director general is Kristel Van der Elst, the former head of strategic foresight at the World Economic Forum (WEF).9

In the report’s Foreword, Van der Elst is very open that, in the coming years, biodigital technologies may become integrated into everyday life the way digital technologies are now. She states quite clearly that this will redefine what it means to be “human”: “More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.”10
  • And there’s more. The report outlines ways in which biodigital convergence is emerging and developing new ways to:11
  • Change human beings’ bodies, minds and behaviors
  • Change or create other organisms
  • Alter ecosystems
  • Sense, store, process and transmit information
  • Manage biological innovation
  • Structure and manage production and supply chains
Blurring What Is Considered Natural, Digital or Engineered

In biodigital convergence, biological and digital entities become fully integrated, “creating new hybrid forms of life and technology, each functioning in the tangible world, often with heightened capabilities.”12 Policy Horizons Canada makes it sound like this is no big deal, since “robots with biological brains and biological bodies with digital brains already exist, as do human-computer and brain-machine interfaces.”

But they’re literally talking about “tapping into the nervous system and manipulating neurons” to add technology to organisms with the intent of altering “its function and purpose.”13 What could possibly go wrong? For just one example of how the use of tech can quickly backfire, eerie snippets from the World Economic Forum’s 2016 meeting detailed research underway to decode your thoughts, read your mind and even use your own thoughts against you in a court of law.14

Ultimately, the plan is for a coevolution of biological and digital technologies, such that, “There is also a blurring between what is considered natural or organic and what is digital, engineered, or synthetic.”15 The section of the report titled, “Good morning, biodigital” is perhaps most disturbing of all, as it outlines a possible glimpse into a future biodigital world. I suggest you read it in its entirety, but here’s a snippet:16
“While I’m brushing my teeth, Jamie, my personal AI, asks if I’d like a delivery drone to come pick up my daughter’s baby tooth, which fell out two days ago. The epigenetic markers in children’s teeth have to be analysed and catalogued on our family genetic blockchain in order to qualify for the open health rebate, so I need that done today.

I replace the smart sticker that monitors my blood chemistry, lymphatic system, and organ function in real time. It’s hard to imagine the costs and suffering that people must have endured before personalized preventative medicine became common.

Also, I’ll admit that it sounds gross, but it’s a good thing the municipality samples our fecal matter from the sewage pipes. It’s part of the platform to analyze data on nutritional diversity, gut bacteria, and antibiotic use, to aid with public health screening and fight antibiotic-resistant strains of bacterial infections.”

Genobility — Creating a Superior Class of People

Wearable technology and neurotechnology are upon us, with brain computer interfaces and electrodes in development that would neurologically enhance humans. Currently, such interfaces are aimed at people with disabilities, but likely would progress into other “enhancements,” like super intelligence or preferred physical traits.17

Already, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is used to identify embryos without genetic defects, with claims that it will soon be able to screen for embryos with the highest IQ.18 CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology has also been used to alter DNA in human embryos in a way that would eliminate or correct the genes causing certain inherited diseases.

Soon, however, such enhancements could lead to “genobility,” in which certain people have superior genes or transhuman traits and the benefits that go along with them, while the “less superior” humans, like the unvaccinated, are awarded fewer rights. X Prize noted:19

“The future of genetic engineering must be regulated in order to prevent what the ethicist Ron Green calls a ‘genobility’ — a class of people with superior genes, who can afford to have them.

While this might sound sci-fi, we already live in a society with huge discrepancies around healthcare, points out Green, as the cost of genome sequencing is falling, and therefore may become more accessible to more people, regulation in the fields of human enhancement becomes ever more critical.”

Engineers Are Actively Making This Happen

Again, Corbett points out that this isn’t speculation. Researchers, such as MIT’s Susan Hockfield, Ph.D., are actively constructing ways to make transhumanism happen. Hockfield wrote the book, “The Age of Living Machines,” in which she explains “the coming convergence of biology and engineering — and how it will change our world for the better.”20

Corbett also pointed to a Harvard Magazine article from 2011, in which the former chairman of the Harvard department of chemistry, nanoscience expert Charles Lieber, Ph.D, created a virus-sized transistor that could penetrate cell membranes due to its fatty “lipid layer.”21

Pfizer and Moderna are now using a lipid nanoparticle delivery system for their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, bringing us full circle. Lieber, by the way, was arrested in early 2020 by federal agencies, suspected of illegal dealings with China.22 Pentagon scientists and Profusa have also developed a tiny biosensor that can be embedded under your skin to detect disease. Profusa said it intended to seek FDA approval for their tissue-integrating biosensor in 2021.23

It’s essential to be aware of the coming “Great Convergence” and its intent to usher in transhumanism and a “Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Paradigm.” Researchers wrote in Postdigital Science and Education:24'

“A central point of critique in the critical philosophy of convergence is the political economy of ‘post-biological technocracy’ and its tendency to ‘numb’ the biological self and creates a kind of digital obedience where Big Tech ‘platform ontologies’ know us better than we know ourselves.”


Has No Life - Lives on TB
and you thought your health insurance premiums were going toward caring for your health


TB Fanatic

Five more oil and gas pipelines targeted by green activists

by Josh Siegel, Energy and Environment Reporter |
| June 13, 2021 06:07 AM

Environmental activists are targeting at least five major oil and gas pipelines after celebrating the death of Keystone XL this week.

Over the past two years, at least four multibillion-dollar pipeline projects that drew protests have been canceled or delayed, signaling to activists the effectiveness of their pressure campaign for a carbon-free future.

Sometimes, as in the case of the $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline, whose permit was yanked by President Joe Biden, political considerations force project developers to give up.

Similarly, Williams Companies last year canceled its $1 billion, 125-mile natural gas Constitution pipeline after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo used Clean Water Act power to block construction.

Cuomo used the same authority to deny a permit for the $1 billion Williams Northeast Supply Enhancement project to deliver natural gas from Pennsylvania through New Jersey to New York City. Williams Companies has not given up trying to build that pipeline but is on a delayed timeline.

Other times, legal fees drain a project's financing.

Last year, utilities Dominion Energy and Duke Energy announced they would abandon construction of the $8 billion Atlantic Coast pipeline, which would have carried natural gas 600 miles from West Virginia to East Coast markets.

Court challenges to that project led to yearslong construction delays and a more than $3 billion cost increase, according to the utilities.

Another $1 billion natural gas pipeline, PennEast, is still being fought, with a closely watched eminent domain case pending before the Supreme Court.

Here are five more targets of activists facing uncertain futures.

Dakota Access: This spring, the Biden administration declined to order the Dakota Access oil pipeline to shut down while it completes an environmental review, dealing a blow to green groups and Native American tribes that had sought to stop it from operating.

The Dakota Access pipeline has been carrying oil for more than three years from North Dakota to Illinois. But multiple courts have found the Trump administration’s environmental review of the project to be deficient, so Biden is conducting a new one. The administration could shutter the pipeline if the Army Corps of Engineers environmental review makes that determination. But it would be unprecedented because the pipeline is already operating, unlike Keystone XL.

Enbridge’s Line 3: The $9 billion Line 3 pipeline expansion in northern Minnesota has been the subject of protests this week, leading to tense standoffs with police and the arrests of more than 160 people.

Enbridge is looking to replace an aging pipeline to transport crude from Canada’s Alberta oil sands, the same emissions-intensive source that would have been used in Keystone XL, through the state's watersheds and tribal lands to Superior, Wisconsin. Despite pressure from activists, the Biden administration has declined to weigh in on the project. Environmentalists are also pressing their case in court.

Enbridge’s Line 5: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has ordered the 645-mile Line 5 pipeline operated by the same Canadian energy company, Enbridge, to shut down, citing risks that the pipeline could leak or spill oil.

Enbridge’s Line 5, which carries up to 540,000 barrels per day of crude oil and natural gas liquids, runs under the Straits of Mackinac connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Enbridge is defying the order, however, saying the governor does not have the authority to shut it. Enbridge wants to move Line 5 into a new, $500 million tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac to reduce the risk of leaks.

Biden has also not intervened or directly commented on this project.

Trans Mountain: Biden does not have any authority over the Trans Mountain pipeline, an expansion project taken over by the Canadian government that would carry an additional 535,000 barrels a day of oil from Alberta’s tar sands to the coast of British Columbia.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government bought the 68-year-old pipeline in 2018 when previous owner Kinder Morgan threatened to halt it while facing legal hurdles. But the government plans to sell the project eventually. In the meantime, insurers have dropped out of supporting the pipeline, prompting Trans Mountain to receive regulatory approval to protect the identity of its insurers.

Mountain Valley: Federal energy regulators voted in December to allow the developers of the Mountain Valley pipeline to do construction near a 25-mile area that includes going through the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

But several of the permits for the $6.2 billion Mountain Valley pipeline, a 303-mile project that would carry natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia, are under legal scrutiny, and its cost has nearly doubled.

A coalition building the project recently said it would delay the startup of the pipeline to summer 2022 after originally planning to begin operating by late 2018.


TB Fanatic
5:45 min

Here are The GREAT RESET hints within Biden’s G7 presser

•Jun 14, 2021

Glenn Beck

President Biden has made several remarks about autocratic governments and whether or not democracies will be able to compete with them in the 21st Century. Glenn breaks down Biden’s recent statement on the same topic from Sunday’s G7 presser, explaining how the president is planting the seeds for the Great Reset. And when the world’s biggest superpowers have a ‘monopoly of governments,’ Glenn says, no longer will YOU have the freedom to live how you choose. ‘They’re making a world where you cannot escape.’


TB Fanatic

The Coming 'Build Back Better' World

MONDAY, JUN 14, 2021 - 03:45 PM
By Michael Every of Rabobank

Double Or Nothing
There’s lots to cover today, but let’s start with inflation. Friday’s Michigan consumer sentiment survey saw the headline rise to 86.4 from 82.9 because expectations jumped from 78.8 to 83.8, while current conditions fell; and 1-year ahead inflation expectations dropped from 4.6% back to 4.0%, and five-year inflation from 3.0% to 2.8%, even as the ‘good time to buy a house or car’ sub-indices collapsed due to the inflation being seen in those areas. Perhaps everyone surveyed closely tracks the lumber market, where prices are tumbling; or they instinctively grasp high prices destroy demand; in which case, everything is “transitory”. Like anaesthetic-free dentistry?

Meanwhile, in China there was also major inflation news Friday. Bloomberg stated “China Turns to Its Huge Commodity Reserves in Bid to Tame Prices”, underlining Beijing will be using its stocks of commodities --soft to hard-- to cap prices, starting with aluminium, coal, copper, and zinc. China has also stated it will set up a temporary pork reserve system to keep a lid on that key ‘P’ in CPI --along with corn, wheat, edible oil, and vegetables-- allowing the state to stockpile whenever domestic prices fall “excessively”, and to sell when prices rise too high. In short, China is effectively trying to act as the global price setter of commodities to keep inflation in check.

Yet commodities are subject to global demand, and are priced in USD not CNY! Against a general reversal in global commodity prices, releasing Chinese stocks, after lashing out at speculators, suggests a further near-term dip. However, such stabilisation schemes can only work long term if China has enough reserves relative to the rest of the world’s demand, not just its own. It’s similar to selling FX reserves to prop up an over-valued currency at a target rate: it works fine for a while – but even the largest reserve piles don’t last long if the entire global market is leaning in the opposite direction. And while one can close off the FX market and capital flows in a pinch, one cannot do the same for food or commodities. In short, if global demand does not quit, then the risk is Chinese price pressures will double.

Herein, one sees an uncomfortable truth revealed. Under the Trump presidency, there was recognition in China of its strategic vulnerability to ‘tight’ USD liquidity via the presidency and USTR (tariffs), the Fed (rate hikes, and indirect access to swap lines), and the Treasury (sanctions). As we now see, even an ultra-loose Fed --the presidency, USTR, and Treasury are unchanged-- offers its own problems: too many dollars, if they push up the price of commodities, can be as destabilising as too few.

On which note, over to the G7. Headlines were grabbed by plans to donate 1bn doses of vaccine to the world – which only shows most journalists can’t count and need to reply on former UK PM Gordon Brown to do it for them, because the ex-G7 population is around 7bn, and the offered doses only cover 500m. In short, the global Covid problem, and risks of new, more dangerous strains emerging, is going to linger – and we need much more than double that pledge to quit worrying about the global outlook.

Other headlines were focused on how the G7 had aligned behind the White House’s push for a more aggressive stance vs. China, in line with its ‘democracies vs. autocracies’ rhetoric. The actual wording of the G7 statement on China (implicitly and explicitly) was not really different from that of previous years. However, there were a few major points of difference suggesting the G7 is going to double and not quit given it:
  • Demanded an unimpeded, transparent, WHO-led investigation into the origins of Covid-19, which many observers note is most unlikely to ever happen – so what then in response?;
  • Pledged that by October 2021 steps will be taken to remove goods produced with forced labour from supply chains. This may not have named names, but everyone knows who this means – and few realise how disruptive it will be to already-strained supply chains if acted on;
  • Offered a green, inclusive ‘Build Back Better World’ (B3W) to bridge a $40 trillion global infrastructure deficit (which includes “gender neutral” and “feminine” construction according to PM Johnson, doing his usual job of grasping at trendy memes like a drowning man at flotsam and jetsam). Crucially, by its ‘inclusive’ definition, B3W cannot mean allowing the fruits of new green industries to be harvested only in China, and exported to the West from it;
  • There was a promise of an (initial?) $100bn alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Details are of course lacking, but it is a huge geostrategic step forward – and one predicted back in March 2017 (“One Belt, One Road?”). Expect World Bank/IMF Green Loans to crowd in private sector investment in emerging markets, which will build infrastructure that sees key green resources and logistics to flow towards the G7, not China; and
  • Expect NATO to get involved in protecting this as a new global ‘green’ strategic mission. And it is NATO where President Biden heads today.
Of course, China’s response was tart, asserting that the days when global decisions were dictated by a small group of countries are long gone: and ahead of Biden’s side-bar meeting with NATO ally President Erdogan of Turkey, Beijing boosted the PBOC FX swap-line Ankara enjoys from $2.4bn to $6.0bn.

However, potentially the West will now be dolling out global cash like candy too, which its central banks have been doing for years after all, and to little geostrategic or geoeconomic benefit. What do you think that will mean for global commodity demand, or for attempts to try to cap it by any one country, no matter how large?

And speaking of large countries, after visiting NATO today, and diplomatically making the same point both Presidents Obama and Trump did before him --that freedom is neither free (nor free trade)-- President Biden then goes to Geneva on Wednesday to meet with Russian President Putin. Somewhat puzzlingly, Biden just stated that he believes the US and Russia can work together on Covid, cyber-crime, and conflicts. They already are – just on opposite sides.

Of course, Wednesday is the same day as the June Fed meeting (see here for our preview) and its latest round of dot-plottery, where we get to see if it is 2023 or 2024 before a new front is opened up on markets. The key point, however, is that these little dots are now as inextricably linked to larger geostrategic issues as the wooden representations of aircraft pushed around maps with sticks by staff in WW2 movies.


TB Fanatic

Is A "Climate Lockdown" On The Horizon?

MONDAY, JUN 14, 2021 - 11:40 PM
Authored by Kit Knightly via,

If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.

At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.

Let’s dive right in.

The report, titled “Avoiding a climate lockdown”, was written by Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, and head of something called the Council on the Economics of Health for All, a division of the World Health Organization.

It was first published in October 2020 by Project Syndicate, a non-profit media organization that is (predictably) funded through grants from the Open society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and many, many others.

After that, it was picked up and republished by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes itself as “a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.”.

The WBCSD’s membership is essentially every major company in the world, including Chevron, BP, Bayer, Walmart, Google and Microsoft. Over 200 members totalling well over 8 TRILLION dollars in annual revenue.

In short: an economist who works for the WHO has written a report concerning “climate lockdowns”, which has been published by both a Gates+Soros backed NGO AND a group representing almost every bank, oil company and tech giant on the planet.

Whatever it says, it clearly has the approval of the people who run the world.

The text of the report itself is actually quite craftily constructed. It doesn’t outright argue for climate lockdowns, but instead discusses ways “we” can prevent them.
As COVID-19 spread […] governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.
This cleverly creates a veneer of arguing against them, whilst actually pushing the a priori assumptions that any so-called “climate lockdowns” would a) be necessary and b) be effective. Neither of which has ever been established.

Another thing the report assumes is some kind of causal link between the environment and the “pandemic”:
COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation
I wrote an article, back in April, exploring the media’s persistent attempts to link the Covid19 “pandemic” with climate change. Everybody from the Guardian to the Harvard School of Public Health is taking the same position – “The root cause of pandemics [is] the destruction of nature”:
The razing of forests and hunting of wildlife is increasingly bringing animals and the microbes they harbour into contact with people and livestock.
There is never any scientific evidence cited to support this position. Rather, it is a fact-free scare-line used to try and force a mental connection in the public, between visceral self-preservation (fear of disease) and concern for the environment. It is as transparent as it is weak.

So, what exactly is a “climate lockdown”? And what would it entail?

The author is pretty clear:
Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.
There you have it. A “climate lockdown” means no more red meat, the government setting limits on how and when people use their private vehicles and further (unspecified) “extreme energy-saving measures”. It would likely include previously suggested bans on air travel, too.

All in all, it is potentially far more strict than the “public health policy” we’ve all endured for the last year.
As for forcing fossil fuel companies to stop drilling, that is drenched in the sort of ignorance of practicality that only exists in the academic world. Supposing we can switch to entirely rely on renewables for energy, we still wouldn’t be able to stop drilling for fossil fuels.

Oil isn’t just used as fuel, it’s also needed to lubricate engines and manufacture chemicals and plastics. Plastics used in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, for example.

Coal isn’t just needed for power stations, but also to make steel. Steel which is vital to pretty much everything humans do in the modern world.

It reminds me of a Victoria Wood sketch from the 1980s, where an upper-middle class woman remarks, upon meeting a coal miner, “I suppose we don’t really need coal, now we’ve got electricity.”

A lot of post-fossil utopian ideas are sold this way, to people who are comfortably removed from the way the world actually works. This mirrors the supposed “recovery” the environment experienced during lockdown, a mythic creation selling a silver lining of house arrest to people who think that because they’re having their annual budget meetings over Zoom, somehow China stopped manufacturing 900 million tonnes of steel a year, and the US military doesn’t produce more pollution than 140 different countries combined.

The question, really, is why would an NGO backed by – among others – Shell, BP and Chevron, possibly want to suggest a ban on drilling for fossil fuel? But that’s a discussion for another time.

So, the “climate lockdown” is a mix of dystopian social control, and impractical nonsense likely designed to sell an agenda. But don’t worry, we don’t have to do this. There is a way to avoid these extreme measures, the author says so:
To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently […] Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation […] Far more is needed to achieve a green and sustainable recovery […] we want to transform the future of work, transit, and energy use.
“Overhaul”? “reorienting”? “transformation”?

Seems like we’re looking at a new-built society. A “reset”, if you will, and given the desired scope, you could even call it a “great reset”, I suppose.

Except, of course, the Great Reset is just a wild “conspiracy theory”. The elite doesn’t want a Great Reset, even if they keep saying they do

…they just want a massive wholesale “transformation” of our social, financial, governmental and energy sectors.

They want you to own nothing and be happy. Or else.

Because that’s the oddest thing about this particular article, whereas most fear-porn public programming at least attempts subtlety, there is very definitely an overtly threatening tone to this piece [emphasis added]:
we are approaching a tipping point on climate change, when protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic interventions […] One way or the other, radical change is inevitable; our task is to ensure that we achieve the change we want – while we still have the choice.
The whole article is not an argument, so much as an ultimatum. A gun held to the public’s collective head. “Obviously we don’t want to lock you up inside your homes, force you to eat processed soy cubes and take away your cars,” they’re telling us, “but we might have to, if you don’t take our advice.”

Will there be “climate lockdowns” in the future? I wouldn’t be surprised. But right now – rather than being seriously mooted – they are fulfilling a different role. A frightening hypothetical – A threat used to bully the public into accepting the hardline globalist reforms that make up the “great reset”.


TB Fanatic

G7 Leaders to Agree Anti-Coal, Anti-Car, and Carbon-Cutting Targets
(L-R) Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson, France's President Emmanuel Macron and US President Joe Biden wait for the start of a working session at the G7 summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall on June 12, 2021. - G7 leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the …
BREITBART LONDON13 Jun 20215,415

(AFP) — G7 leaders were on Sunday urged to take urgent action to secure the future of the planet, as they finalised new conservation and emissions targets to curb climate change, and wrapped up a three-day summit where revived Western unity has been on show.

Veteran environmentalist and broadcaster David Attenborough told the gathering of the world’s richest nations the natural world was “greatly diminished” and inequality was widespread.

“The question science forces us to address specifically in 2021 is whether as a result of these intertwined facts we are on the verge of destabilising the entire planet?” he said.

“If that is so, then the decisions we make this decade — in particular the decisions made by the most economically advanced nations — are the most important in human history.”

The leaders, holding their first in-person gathering in nearly two years due to the coronavirus pandemic, will agree to protect at least 30 percent of both land and ocean globally by the end of the decade.

The “Nature Compact” struck to try to halt and reverse biodiversity loss is also set to see them commit to nearly halve their carbon emissions by 2030, relative to 2010.

It includes phasing out the use of “unabated coal” — fuel whose emissions have not gone through any filtering — “as soon as possible”, ending most government support for the fossil fuel sector overseas, and phasing out petrol and diesel cars.


Hailing the pact, host Boris Johnson said the G7 wanted to “drive a global Green Industrial Revolution to transform the way we live”.

“There is a direct relationship between reducing emissions, restoring nature, creating jobs and ensuring long-term economic growth,” the British prime minister added.

Climate change was a key G7 priority for Britain at the summit in Carbis Bay, southwest England, as it tries to lay the groundwork for hosting the UN COP26 environment summit in November.

But before the pledges had even been formally adopted, environmental campaigners blasted them as lacking enforcement and the necessary scope.



TB Fanatic

Democrat AGs Want To Push Companies Into Revealing ‘Climate Change’ Prevention Plans

By Ben Zeisloft
•Jun 15, 2021•

Call for climate action and Line 3 pipeline protest signs are seens during the Treaty People Gathering where Faith Leaders Welcome Talk and Sunset Prayer Circle will take place at Northern Pines Camp in Park Rapids, Minnesota on June 5, 2021. - Line 3 is an oil sands pipeline which runs from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin in the United States. In 2014, a new route for the Line 3 pipeline was proposed to allow an increased volume of oil to be transported daily. While that project has been approved in Canada, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, it has sparked continued resistance from climate justice groups and Native American communities in Minnesota. While many people are concerned about potential oil spills along Line 3, some Native American communities in Minnesota have opposed the project on the basis of treaty rights and calling President Biden to revoke the permits and halt construction. (Photo by Kerem Yucel / AFP) (Photo by KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images)
KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images

Thirteen Democratic state attorneys general want to force companies into revealing their efforts to fight climate change.

The letter — which is signed by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, and Wisconsin — demands that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) push companies into more transparency over climate-related issues.

CNN Business — which obtained the letter — reports:
The states urged the SEC to require companies to make annual disclosures of their emissions and any plans to address them; analyze and disclose the potential impacts of both climate change and climate regulation; and disclose policies on corporate governance and risk management related to climate change.
“Climate change is not a distant problem to be dealt with in the future. It is here, and it threatens the US economy and its financial system,” says the group of lawyers, which was spearheaded by California. “Given the demand from investors for such disclosures, the significance of climate change risk to companies, and the importance of efficient capital allocation to climate-resilient companies, such disclosures are squarely in the public interest.”

In March, former SEC Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee welcomed public comment about “whether current disclosures adequately inform investors, public input is requested from investors, registrants, and other market participants on climate change disclosure.”

The deadline to submit public comment to the SEC is June 15. Among the questions posed by the agency were:

How can the Commission best regulate, monitor, review, and guide climate change disclosures in order to provide more consistent, comparable, and reliable information for investors while also providing greater clarity to registrants as to what is expected of them?

How, if at all, should registrants disclose their internal governance and oversight of climate-related issues?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of developing a single set of global standards applicable to companies around the world, including registrants under the Commission’s rules, versus multiple standard setters and standards?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a “comply or explain” framework for climate change that would permit registrants to either comply with, or if they do not comply, explain why they have not complied with the disclosure rules?

What climate-related information is available with respect to private companies, and how should the Commission’s rules address private companies’ climate disclosures, such as through exempt offerings, or its oversight of certain investment advisers and funds?

The SEC’s consideration of new climate change regulations occurs as China — the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gas emissions — scraps its climate goals to prioritize economic growth.


TB Fanatic

France's Macron Just Gave Away The Plot With His Outside Voice

TUESDAY, JUN 15, 2021 - 10:45 PM
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog, GOLD

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose poll numbers are abysmal and needs a sincere shot in the arm, just gave away the plot with his outside voice.

I’ve noticed this trend within The Davos Crowd in recent months, speaking with their outside voice what they only ever talk about internally.

That plot, by the way, is to transfer power over the global money supply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by eventually doing away with individual central banks.

To that end Macron’s latest proposal is to bailout Africa because COVID by coordinating $100 billion in gold sales of national reserves of the G-7. Who would they sell that gold to? The IMF. That money can then be distributed by the IMF, expanding the supply of SDRs — Special Drawing Rights — using the gold as collateral for the development loans.

He’s talking about $100 billion here. That’s around 1600 tonnes of gold at current prices. 32150.7 ounces/tonne x $1900 per ounce. $0.06109 billion per tonne. 1610 tonnes of gold.

Now, interestingly, a reader on Twitter put a lot of pieces together with this, saying, in effect that that this is the humanitarian cover story for the upcoming liquidation of Italy.

Having spoken with the, an Italian blog with a similar mission, it is well understood within Italian circles that his liquidation of Italy is well underway and Mario Draghi was put in power to effect this.

Italy, officially, has 2450 tonnes of gold, give or take. Macron can ask them to pony up because they owe at least that much to the ECB and Germany through TARGET2. Draghi has already made it explicit that there will be no Italeave without paying that debt. He said this as ECB President. With Christine Lagarde in power that requirement is still there. Now that he’s Prime Minister, Italeave is off the table. Worse, he can effect this transfer once there is political cover for it.

I don’t think this plan has legs just yet, but it is another sign that they have to accelerate their plans because of the rising opposition to the basic framework of Davos’ agenda.

So, Macron speaking on the eve of the G-7 conference to spill the plot is telling of just how bad his electoral prospects are in France, because he needs to improve his image and this is the best he can come up with? Sell some of France’s gold to the IMF to pay for a new colonization program in Africa?

No wonder he got slapped last week.

That said, since this plan is now out in the open what are the implications:
  1. It gives political cover for stealing Italy’s gold, humanitarian giving from the virtuous first world.
  2. It puts the IMF at the center of the post-COVID bailout strategy, neatly avoiding the EU’s naked aggression against its own members.
  3. It rolls the current western gold reserves into one institution rather than a bunch of disparate ones.
  4. Gives the IMF even more ammunition to combat China and Russia’s rampant accumulation of gold and set it up as the future for a world government enforced by the UN
  5. It tells everyone that Europe is losing ground to China and Russia in Africa for the future of rare earths and lithium necessary to pull off their Green Revolution.
  6. It puts the world on notice that the EU now feels confident of its ability to recolonize the third world because of the primacy of its central unelected authority.
  7. This fits right in with the global minimum corp. tax agreement… because once they all agree on this there will have to be an enforcement agency… that agency will be handed to the UN and collected through the IMF.
  8. It paves the way for national CBDC’s unmoored from gold but backed by a basket of “gold-backed SDR’s” and tax policy.
  9. It’s also a frontal assault on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies which are gaining traction very quickly in African countries most vulnerable to dollar supply and demand shock, now that Lightning Network has proven to be functional.
  10. It puts paid that the changes to Basel III’s Stable Funding Ratios are there to increase the price of gold, by removing the Fed’s ability to keep it under wraps through the futures markets and unallocated paper gold.
Macron will not be allowed to leave office next year unless something dramatic happens against Davos’ wishes in France, i.e. some form of violent uprising rather than just protests. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a number of attempts to prop him up to get him across the finish line, Marine Le Pen will get closer but she won’t be allowed to win.

They stopped Trump, they’ll stop Le Pen. It may be the last time they do such a thing and they may burn what political capital and cover they have left in the process, but don’t bet on them NOT DOING IT. At this point no price is too high to pay. They’ve garnered this political capital exactly for this reason, they will spend it.

What comes next is what my friend at The Duran, Alex Mercouris, talked about in my recent chat with him. The Biden / Putin summit will be a bribe and a threat from Biden to Putin. Get on board with this new post-COVID European Marshall Plan to recolonize Africa and we’ll pay you a few hundred million dollars or face a new round of massive sanctions.

This is supposed to create the new version of the Sino-Soviet split? The Russians bring in a few hundred million a month from the U.S. now, exporting 1.4 million barrels per day in May. The idea is laughable on its face and further advances my thesis that the U.S. is intentionally destroying relations with Russia and China through diplomatic ‘gaffes’ which preclude any rapprochement.

The goal is ultimately isolation of the U.S. as a world power diplomatically, while doing exactly what Davos wants to ensure they aren’t blamed for what comes next. So, expect a final break with the U.S. by Russia financially in the post-Summit environment.

This will not be a mistake, it will be part of the plan. Because, again, the goal is the political, economic and cultural dissolution of the U.S. and that only occurs by disrupting as much of the infrastructure of U.S. internal energy market as possible.

At the same time I’ve noted that the Fed was completely silent about this new plan of Macron’s while it’s also clear that Fed Chair Jerome Powell is not down with the ECB’s Christine Lagarde’s over-the-top push to coordinate central bank policy to fight climate change.

That public disagreement on the fulcrum issue for Davos was the most important headline from last week. It signals that whatever Davos has planned for the U.S. the Fed and the banking system is not going to go gently into that dark night.

So, there’s another crack in the Davos agenda. Another front in this war is opening up and it’s going to intensify from here. Powell is not a globalist in the same way that Lagarde, Draghi, Kuroda, Carney and Gordon Brown are.

He’s a private equity guy with a far different ethos and understanding of the situation. He represents similar, but not the same, people.

And he’s not going to sell or revalue one ounce of the U.S.’s gold nor give up the commercial banking sector in the U.S. because the word came down from Klaus Schwab.

That said, the central banks know they are done with the current system and need a new one. To survive they will have to disconnect money from value and work. By doing that they disconnect you from your own value in the work you do. It’s that simple. The most efficient way to do that is sell the gold and isolate those powers unwilling to go along with their plans.

And this all ties directly back to Macron’s innocent and innocuous sounding request for the world to come together and help out poor Africa recover post-COVID and sell their country’s only tangible measure of savings left backing their rapidly devaluing currencies, their gold.


TB Fanatic

G7 Promises ‘Green Revolution,’ a ‘New Deal with Africa’ at Summit
on the G7 trail
Ludovic Marin, Jack Hill, Leon Neal, Sandra Steins/Bundesregierung via Getty Images
FRANCES MARTEL14 Jun 2021489

The leaders of some of the world’s wealthiest countries – with the notable exception of China – published a joint statement following the end of the G7 summit on Sunday vowing a “new deal” for the continent of Africa and heavy investment in a “green revolution” for the world.

The statement also meandered into a wide variety of topics including the war in eastern Ukraine, “hate speech,” imposing a minimum global tax, and improving job prospects for women. The statement repeatedly championed “multilateralism” – a term typically used by rogue states to mean a world not ruled by universal human rights norms – and promised to “build back better,” a term popularized by United Nations programs later adopted by President Joe Biden’s administration.

The “joint communique,” presumably representing the desires and commitments of all seven states in the summit, addressed the Chinese coronavirus pandemic repeatedly, but touched only briefly on China itself, recommending new investigations into the origin of the pandemic and obliquely referring to concerns about “forced labor” in the global market – at a time in which China uses slaves belonging to ethnic minority groups for manufacturing and cotton harvesting.

The summit – featuring the leaders of America, the U.K., Canada, Japan, France, Germany and Italy, and invited guests India, South Africa, Australia, and South Korea – concluded on Sunday.

The G7 leaders promised to “protect our planet by supporting a green revolution that creates jobs, cuts emissions and seeks to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees [Celsius].” Part of that commitment included reiterating the importance of the Paris Climate Agreement, which allows the world’s worst pollution, China, to increase greenhouse gas emissions for at least another decades. India, one of the world’s most egregious climate culprits outside of China, did not, apparently, sign on to the promises in the statement.

Instead, the G7 nations agreed to all reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“[W]e collectively commit to ambitious and accelerated efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and by 2050 at the latest, recognising the importance of significant action this decade,” the joint communique read. “In line with this goal, we have each committed to increased 2030 targets.”

Among measures to reach that goal was also a promise to “phase out new direct government support for international carbon-intensive fossil fuel energy as soon as possible” and to eliminate “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” in four years, without defining what constitutes “inefficient.” The statement also stated the countries would pressure “private capital” to participate in environmental activities by supporting “developing countries and emerging markets in making the most of the opportunities in the transition” towards the “green revolution.”

Elsewhere in the statement, the G7 promised to help underdeveloped countries in Africa with a “new deal” of at least $80 billion in private investment there. Africa is home to 54 countries; the statement did not specify where or towards what the $80 billion would go, or when African leaders would receive it, specifying only that it would arrive within the next five years and go towards “sustainable economic recovery.”

“As we advance recovery plans to support our economies and build back better … developing partner countries, especially in Africa, cannot be left behind,” the joint statement read. “We are deeply concerned that the pandemic has set back progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals and continues to exacerbate global inequalities, and therefore recommit to enhance our efforts to achieve the SDGs by 2030.”

“We are resolved to deepen our current partnership to a new deal with Africa, including by magnifying support from the International Monetary Fund for countries most in need to support our aim to reach a total global ambition of $100 billion,” it affirmed.

Mainstream Western news outlets interpreted the promises to Africa as a counterweight to China’s sprawling Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global debt trap program that has heavily preyed upon nations like Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe. Under the guise of a world infrastructure initiative to improve transportation in underdeveloped parts of the world, China offered high-interest loans to countries that can largely not pay them – resulting in the countries defaulting and Beijing seizing their property. That threat has grown significantly in light of the economic devastation caused by the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, but Communist Party officials have rejected the possibility of forgiving the loans.

The interpretation of the African investment as a challenge to China is necessary due to a lack of direct language that addresses the threat the Communist Party poses to the free world. Other than a threat to “harness the power of democracy, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights” to unspecified ends, the G7 largely avoided addressing China as a threat to the world’s security.

“With regard to China, and competition in the global economy, we will continue to consult on collective approaches to challenging non-market policies and practices which undermine the fair and transparent operation of the global economy,” one segment of the statement read. In another, the group called “for a timely, transparent, expert-led, and science-based WHO [World Health Organization]-convened Phase 2 [Chinese coronavirus] Origins study including, as recommended by the experts’ report, in China.”

The leaders also addressed “forced labour in global supply chains” – a concern almost entirely fueled by China’s use of concentration camp victims as slaves – but did not mention China in regards to that concern.
World experts largely panned the statement as non-commital and vague, according to Reuters.

“This summit was an opportunity for the richest nations of the world to tackle the perfect storm of the pandemic, the climate emergency, and the debt crisis that is hitting the world’s poorest people hardest. The G7 leadership has failed to make real progress in any of these areas,” Patrick Watt, the director of policy and campaigns at Christian aid, told Reuters.

“This summit feels like a broken record of the same old promises,” Greenpeace U.K. Executive Director John Sauven lamented to the news agency.


TB Fanatic

The Future of Zero Emissions (Why You Should Be Worried)
Capitalist Exploits's Photo

WEDNESDAY, JUN 16, 2021 - 11:37

This is quite simply one of the best papers (from JP Morgan) we have read in quite some time. For once, someone finally puts some objective numbers to the pixy land forecasts of the IEA and their woke brethren.

2021 annual energy paper

Why Zero Emissions Won’t Work
One chart that I’d like to highlight: why zero emissions won’t work.

The answer is because emerging markets account for a sizable and growing chunk of emissions, and they ain’t going to be told what to do by the “West”.

I highlighted this in a previous issue of Insider Weekly and we discussed that a continued push to make it so will result in snot flying in a big way (i.e war). But pictures help put things into perspective.

A shift in energy intensive manufacturing to the emerging world

Curtailing emissions means curtailing economic growth in most parts of the world. Good luck on the West getting emerging markets to agree to that!

Change in primary energy use, past and future

Past Performance Is No Guarantee Of Future Results
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It is the mantra we money managers have to include in all our materials (pointy shoes need to be kept happy), but let’s just take a look at past performance, shall we?

Here we have previous “forecasts” from the pointy shoes as to “renewable energy transitions”:

Overly ambitious forecasts of the 4th great energy transition

These clowns’ forecasts were clearly way out of touch with reality. That would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the current clutch of bedwetting hysterical eco snowflakes recent “forecasts” were not much, much, much worse. But they are.

Remember also that the emerging markets are still largely energy starved, meaning they have not reached living standards anywhere near that of the developed/Western world.

Living standards are inexorably tied to energy consumption. Destroying the latter impacts the former., and you’re talking about human lives here where, when we’re talking developing nations, it’s not a mere fact of having to pull on another woolly jumper but a matter of food tonight… or no food tonight.

I found this, too. All a lot of things we already knew but with additional granularity. Here’s something worth thinking about. Both the US and China use fossil fuels for over 80% of their primary energy needs, and much hoo-ha has been given to China for their “EV transition” which accounts for roughly 17% in autos (which compares to the US at 3%).

Go China, you planet saving heroes!

China's EVs Require 57% Coal
We have badgered you, fine folk, many times with this. It is now time to do so again. EVs require electricity, so let us look at industrial primary energy usage, which in the US is 27% and in China is, wait for it, 57%. So you know that much heralded 17% EV penetration in China. You know what it’s powered by? Coal (57% of it)!

Muppets. What else? Well, we’re 100% heading into an energy crisis, but on a granular level this “green” vegan eating, LGQBT fair trade, safe space world is going to require enormous infrastructure for electricity.

Simply put, we’re not going to have enough transmission capacity.

The pointy shoe’d “intellectuals” over at Princeton pulled out their models (read last week’s issue for more on “models” from academics) and published a snazzy energy proposal for 2050 ensuring they popped in that overused and absurdly nonsensical buzzword “net-zero”.

It is what they called their report. No kidding. Well, I can tell you what IS a zero, and it is the probability we reach any of their hallucinations mentioned.

Here is Princeton’s “net-zero” as a graphical representation.
It would require a 14X buildout of wind and solar, together with a 5X buildout of transmission capacity...
US transmission infrastructure

In any event, based on these hallucinations, what is missed (aside from the pictures of freezing people and starving babies) is what will be required to bring these hallucinations into a magical existence.

It would require a 14X buildout of wind and solar, together with a 5X buildout of transmission capacity. That is because wind and solar are intermittent.

The folks at Princeton, being highly “edumacated” haven’t forgotten that building out this currently missing transmission mechanisms costs money. They’ve neatly “forecast” this for us.

Yay! It is almost certainly wildly inaccurate and will cost at least twice these “forecasts,” but at least it will give you a sense of the enormous capital that needs to be thrown at this boondoggle.

historical and projected transmission investment

Ridiculous Energy Storage Costs
So moving right along on the buffet table of stupid, let’s look at the storage of all this electricity.
Instead of going with John Kerry’s “yet to be discovered technologies,” we’ll shoot with that which we actually know we have here and now, shall we? Call me unreasonable, but that’s just how my little brain operates since attempting to quantify that which doesn’t exist I find too hard.

Everyone knows that Elon has and is saving the skies with his Tesla powerpack.

Tesla Megapack installation in Moss Landing California

So we’ll contrast that to… oh I dunno, some of these. Good old oil storage tanks.

Oil storage tanks

Did you see what I did there? I snuck in a sunset photo at the same time. Sneaky.

Well, they both look similar. On the one hand we’ve tanks and on the other what looks like white shipping containers. Well, where they differ is this.

It costs about $15 per barrel to buy an oil storage tank. In order to store an amount of electricity equal to the energy in that one barrel of oil, which is approximately 1,700 kWh, it will cost $510,000 based on the $300 per kWh cost of the Tesla megapack.

You don’t need me to tell you that this is just plain stupid. It is unscientific, ideologically driven green madness.

But hey, the show must go on… and so it will. As I’ve mentioned too many times to remember now, what we’re seeing is the Western world ceding economic power to those who simply stand still.

historical rates of installed electric-generating capacity

These “projections” being made, while being absurdly ambitious with astronomical capex costs associated, would mean that natural gas demand by the grid would decline by -13%. What? Yup!

Natural Gas reliance needs to fall by 13 percent

Lastly and then I’ll leave this one alone, here is a chart showing the various demand projections by the respective interested parties.

Oil future production wedge, demand vs existing field supply

How To Profit From The Madness
You will notice that there is a significant gap. That gap is where we make a isht load of money on being long non-Western energy.


TB Fanatic
7:12 min

The Great Reset just had A ‘GIGANTIC DEVELOPMENT’ forward
•Jun 16, 2021

Glenn Beck

During Joe Biden’s recent G7 presser, the president made several comments that clearly show his administration is dedicated to moving The Great Reset forward as quickly as possible — likely in low and middle-income countries first. Glenn explains how the stated ‘top priorities’ of the G7 — like equity, inclusive global economic recovery, and fighting climate change — show a ‘gigantic development’ forward for the World Economic Forum’s masterplan.


TB Fanatic

Financial Elites Plotting a ‘Great Reset’ to Destroy Personal Wealth

Video on website 14:12


The following content is sponsored by Brownstone Research.

As the world’s economy emerges from the crisis caused by the pandemic, global elites have pushed for a “Great Reset.” Brownstone Research founder Jeff Brown spoke with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow about the implications of this globalist vision for ordinary investors and how Brownstone Research’s personalized “Great Reset Protection Plan” provides all the tools investors need to protect themselves against these destructive market forces.

Though the pandemic has pushed talk of the Great Reset into broader political discourse, Brown explained that the idea is much older. The phrase originated with Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), in 2014. But, as Brown noted, “Philosophically, this has been going on for thousands of years.”

“The powerful and the elites of the world have always tried to impose their will and signal their virtue to society obviously at their own benefit, not the benefit for the general population,” Brown said.

However, he noted that the pandemic has only accelerated this globalist push, as governments and corporations have exercised unprecedented power over individuals.

Brown framed the Great Reset as part of the trend of “woke capitalism,” which he described as “the corporate version of virtue signaling.”

He explained that we can see the Great Reset in action in the corporate world’s embrace of ESG investing, which stands for “Environmental, Social, and Governance.”

“ESG is one the largest themes in the corporate world right now, as companies try to rebrand themselves,” he said. “And it’s all about money and perception in the sense that even large institutional funds on Wall Street are trying to reposition themselves as being good, raising trillions of dollars of funds only to be invested in ESG approved companies. And, of course, companies are excited to rebrand themselves so that they have access to that kind of capital and those types of investors.”

“From my perspective, a very perverse loop is happening right now that is actually feeding into what those behind the Great Reset are trying to accomplish,” Brown added.

“What is their goal? What is the objective for some of these global elites?” Marlow asked.

“Obviously it’s almost always about money and power,” Brown said. “By imposing controls, they can impose and control the flow of capital into places they see fit, not where we, as taxpayers or citizens, feel is appropriate. If you control the flows of money, obviously you can benefit. They have the added benefit in their eyes of being perceived to be doing good for the world and the perception that they know better about what’s good for us and that they’re steering things in the right direction.”

“But this will absolutely exacerbate the types of inequalities and problems that we see around the world today, rather than solving them,” Brown cautioned. “And the Great Reset, of course, always leaves out one key point: How is the world going to pay for all of these grand visions?”

“Do you know the answer?” Marlow asked.

“They’re going to print a lot more money,” Brown answered. “And what that means is the value of our dollars or our euros or our yen will be quickly devalued and depreciated over shorter periods of time.”

“I know that if folks go over to, you give them a comprehensive plan on how to deal with this in their personal life,” Marlow said. “What can we be doing to guard against this on an individual basis?”

“My overarching goal is to help normal investors protect against these types of things,” Brown explained. “We try to stack the deck in favor of normal people and give them the same advantages, if not more, than the insiders on Wall Street. And any time we’re living in these types of highly inflationary, very radical progressive monetary policy periods, things like fixed assets are important.”

“If we outpace inflation, then our real return on investments will be greater than a government’s ability to devalue the currency,” he added. “So, what I really try to convey to my subscribers are investing in ways that can do exactly that — that can grow their assets at rates that are much faster than inflation.”


TB Fanatic
CLIMATE LOCKDOWN?: Globalist Elite Call For Extreme Measures To Tackle ‘Climate Change’
Is this what they have planned for us in the near future?

Andrew White

June 17, 2021

CLIMATE LOCKDOWN?: Globalist Elite Call For Extreme Measures To Tackle ‘Climate Change’

The globalist elite are calling for the “equivalent of a coronavirus-pandemic-scale lockdown once every two years” to tackle climate change.

“Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling,” according to various reports.

“As COVID-19 spread earlier this year, governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency,” wrote Mariana Mazzucato, a professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London and the author of Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism, in October 2020.

Her report can be found on the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Economic Analysis section of their website, along with a slew of related reports by members of the The Committee for Development Policy (CDP), a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), discussing climate change, COVID-19, the future of capitalism, and the Green New Deal.

“Carbon dioxide emissions must fall by the equivalent of a global lockdown roughly every two years for the next decade for the world to keep within safe limits of global heating,” wrote The Guardian’s Fiona Harvey in March 2021. Back in November 2020, Harvey wrote that in “most countries government intervention is needed, either to regulate to force people and businesses to undertake improvements.”

“We need a cut in emissions of about the size of the fall [from the lockdowns] every two years, but by completely different methods,” said Corinne Le Quéré, lead study author from the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in England.

This comes amid a series of devastating cyber attacks against critical infrastructure targets that have drastically impacted the use of fossil fuels and the production of meat in the United States. As pointed out by the New York Times, “cars lined up at gas stations across much of the Southeast” due to fuel shortages after the Colonial Pipeline was struck with a cyber attack. More recently, following a cyberattack on JBS SA, the largest meat producer in the world, the company was forced to shutdown of all its US beef plants. “Some shoppers may want to brace themselves for yet another possible supply crunch — this time with meat,” wrote CNN in early June.

During a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Switzerland, Joe Biden handed the Russian President a list of 16 “off limits” US critical infrastructure targets, as National File reported. “Certain critical infrastructures should be off-limits to attack, period, by cyber or any other means,” said Biden. “I gave them a list, 16 specific entities defined as critical infrastructure under U.S. policy, from the energy sector to water systems.”

While experts have noted that the move could have devastating national security implications for the US, Americans are curious to see if the damaging results of any potential future cyber attacks on US critical infrastructure targets will continue to coincidentally align with the goals set forth by climate change proponents, the globalist corporate elite, and the United Nations.


TB Fanatic

USA 2021: Capitalism For The Powerless, Crony-Socialism For The Powerful

FRIDAY, JUN 18, 2021 - 04:20 PM
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The only dynamic that's even faintly "capitalist" about America's Crony-Socialism is the price of political corruption is still a "market."

The supposed "choice" between "capitalism" and "socialism" is a useful fabrication masking the worst of all possible worlds we inhabit: Capitalism for the powerless and Crony-Socialism for the powerful. Capitalism's primary dynamics are reserved solely for the powerless: market price of money, capital's exploitive potential, free-for-all competition and creative destruction.

The powerful, on the other hand, bask in the warm glow of socialism: The Federal Reserve protects them from the market cost of money--financiers and the super-wealthy get their money for virtually nothing from the Fed, in virtually unlimited quantities--and the Treasury, Congress and the Executive branch protect them from any losses: their gains are private, but their losses are transferred to the public. The Supreme Court ensures the super-rich maintain this cozy crony-socialism by ensuring they can buy political power via lobbying and campaign contributions--under the laughable excuse of free speech.

Cronies get the best political system money can buy and you--well, you get to carry a sign on the street corner, just before you're hauled off to jail for disturbing the peace (and you're banned by social media/search Big Tech, i.e. privatized totalitarianism, for good measure).

The Federal Reserve is America's financial Politburo: cronies get a free pass, the powerless get nothing. While the three billionaires who own more wealth than the bottom 165 million Americans can borrow unlimited sums for next to nothing thanks to the Fed (i.e. Crony-Socialist Politburo), the 165 million Americans pay exorbitant interest on payday loans, used car loans, student loans, credit cards and so on.

Capitalism (market sets price of money) for the powerless, Crony-Socialism (nearly free money) for the powerful--thanks to America's Crony-Socialist Politburo, the Fed. Consider the "free market" plight of America's working poor: earning low wages that are rapidly losing their purchasing power makes them a credit risk, i.e. prone to defaulting, so lenders (i.e. capital's exploitive potential) charge high interest rates on loans to the working poor.

Since they pay such high rates of interest and earn so little, they default on their debt at higher rates--just what the lenders expected, and what the lenders created by charging sky-high rates of interest: gee, you're having trouble paying 24% interest? Too bad you're poor. You see the point: low wages, poverty and exorbitant rates of interest are mutually reinforcing: a primary driver of defaults and poverty is paying sky-high rates of interest and all the late fees, bounced check fees, etc. that go with 24% interest rates.

The Crony-Socialists have a much different deal with the Fed and its crony-bankers: the super-wealthy arrange for the corporations they own shares in to borrow billions of dollars to fund stock buybacks (which in a less exploitive era were illegal market manipulation). The super-wealthy Crony-Socialist's personal wealth rises by $100 million thanks to the stock buybacks, and then the super-wealthy Crony-Socialist borrows $10 million for next to nothing against this newly conjured "wealth" (thanks, Fed!) to fund living large.

Crony-Socialist corporations pay no income tax thanks to loopholes and the Crony-Socialists who own the shares report $1 in salary and zero income because they borrowed their living expenses against their Fed-conjured wealth. Do you discern the difference between capitalism for the powerless and crony-socialism for the super-wealthy?

If you can't yet discern the difference, then ask yourself: can you borrow $1 billion from the Fed's cronies to buy back shares of your own company, and then borrow $10 million for near-zero rates of interest against the newly conjured "wealth"? You can't? Well, why not?

If you answer "I don't have enough collateral," you missed the key point here: thanks to America's Crony-Socialist Politburo (the Fed), the super-wealthy have no exposure to the market price of money. The Fed manipulates the cost of money to near-zero, and then funnels unlimited sums of this nearly-free money to corporations, financiers and the super-wealthy.

Collateral is unnecessary in Crony-Socialism; that's just a excuse given to the powerless. Crony-Socialists borrow $1 billion for next to nothing, buy Treasuries with the free money, put the Treasuries up as collateral (but wait, didn't they borrow the money? Never mind, it doesn't matter), originate some financial instruments (CDOs, etc.), post those as collateral, and then leverage up another bet on that fictitious collateral.

If the bets all go bad, the Crony-Socialist claims the whole fraud is now a systemic risk and so the losses are transferred to the public / taxpayers to "save the financial system from collapse." Isn't Crony-Socialism fantastic?

Just as the rich kid caught with smack gets a suspended sentence and probation while the powerless kid gets a tenner in the War on Drugs Gulag, the super-wealthy Crony-Socialists avoid all the consequences of their gambles and frauds. America's Crony-Socialist Politburo (the Fed) takes care of its cronies and the powerless bear the brunt of predatory exploitation that's passed off as "capitalism."

The only dynamic that's even faintly "capitalist" about America's Crony-Socialism is the price of political corruption is still a "market": what's the current price of protecting your monopoly or cartel from competition? It's moving up fast, so better get those bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions for the 2022 election) in now before the price of corrupting "democracy" goes even higher.


TB Fanatic

DESTROYING THE AMERICAN DREAM: Bloomberg Piece PRAISES Collapse of Home Ownership, Looks Forward to “Nation of Renters”

Jun 18, 2021

In an effort to usher in the world of globalist fantasy, a Bloomberg piece uses Orwellian language in an effort to soft-sell declining homeownership rates as a phenomenon to be embraced and welcomed with open arms. The piece looks forward to a future where the concept of homeownership is an archaic relic of the past and is increasingly considered an irrelevant aspect of the American Dream.

The author of the piece starts by documenting the factors that made homeownership possible for the vast middle of American society during the twentieth century. The author seems to actually lament factors such as stable long-term prices and the concept of one’s primary residence being the greatest source of wealth creation for most Americans because this kept homeownership an irremovable part of the concept of the American Dream for as long as anyone can remember.

The author’s spirits then seem to rise as he documents how these factors started to unravel during this century, making homeownership increasingly out of reach for low and middle-income families and subsequently forcing people to become renters instead. The author seems to almost celebrate the increasingly sporadic nature of the housing market as institutional speculators play an ever more prominent role in determining prices, thereby effectively financing the housing market and making it just as risky as equity markets, something many families are not capable of stomaching.

One of the supposed benefits the author foresees in a “nation of renters” is that Americans will become increasingly transient and less tied to a particular place, with its sense of stability and continuity. Meanwhile, countries such as Singapore, which had one of Asia’s worst slums half a century ago now has nearly 9 out of 10 residents owning their home, giving them a stake in the long-term future of their country. Who is doing it better?


TB Fanatic

Fear: The Contagious Control Mechanism of Covid-19 and The Great Reset

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
June 18, 2021
Fear: The Contagious Control Mechanism of Covid-19 and The Great Reset

  • In a newly released book, members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior, a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in the U.K., admit government is using fear to control and manipulate the population
  • SPI-B, which advocated for the use of fear messaging, now says it was unethical, totalitarian and a regrettable mistake
  • Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data — which was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways — fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused
  • Giving out contradictory recommendations is being done on purpose, to keep you psychologically vulnerable. By layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally. Once driven into an illogical state, you are easily manipulated
  • Government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, and are increasing
Governments are using fear to control and manipulate their citizens. That has now been admitted by members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K. And they should know, because they advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake. As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:1
“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’ Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.’”
Psychological Warfare Is Real
The Telegraph quotes several of the SPI-B members, all of whom are also quoted in the newly released book, “A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” written by Laura Dodsworth:2
“One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: ‘In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.
The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’ …
One warned that ‘people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’ …
Another member of SPI-B said they were ‘stunned by the weaponization of behavioral psychology’ during the pandemic, and that ‘psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them.’
Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the COVID Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: ‘If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become. If we’re being really honest, do I fear that government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.’”
The Manufacture of Fear
For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. For months on end, you couldn’t turn on the television without facing a tickertape detailing the number of hospitalizations and deaths.
Even when it became clear that people weren’t really dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media fed us continuous updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting such figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.

People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right. ~ Laura Dodsworth
Information that would have balanced out the bad news — such as recovery rates and just how many so-called “cases” actually weren’t, because they never had a single symptom — were censored and suppressed.
They also refused to put any of the data into context, such as reviewing whether the death toll actually differed significantly from previous years. Instead, each new case was treated as an emergency and a sign of catastrophic doom.

Don’t Be Confused — Contradiction Is a Warfare Tactic
Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data — which, by the way, was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways — fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused. According to Dodsworth, giving out contradictory recommendations and vague instructions is being done intentionally, to keep you psychologically vulnerable.
“When you create a state of confusion, people become ever more reliant on the messaging. Instead of feeling confident about making decisions, they end up waiting for instructions from the Government,” she said in a May 20, 2021, interview on the Planet Normal podcast.3
An example provided by Dodsworth are the pandemic measures implemented over Christmas 2020:
“Family Christmases were on, then off, then back on, then off again. You have got someone tightening the screw, then loosening the screw, then tightening it again. It’s like a torture scenario.”
But that’s not all. As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, by layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally. Once driven into an illogical state, they are easily manipulated. I have no doubt driving people into a state where logic and reason no longer registers is the whole point behind much of the conflicting information we’re given.

The Fear Factory
In her book, Dodsworth details a number of branches of the British government that are using psychological warfare methods in their interaction with the public. In addition to the SPI-B, there’s the:4

•Behavioral Insights team, the so-called “nudge unit,” a semi-independent government body that applies “behavioral insights to inform policy, improve public services and deliver positive results for people and communities.”5 This team also advises foreign nations.

•Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which is part of the U.K.’s Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, advises front groups disguised as public “grassroots” organizations on how to “covertly engineer the thoughts of people.”

•Rapid Response Unit, launched in 2018, operates across the British Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s office (colloquially known as “Number 10” as in the physical address, 10 Downing Street in London) to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” They also work with the National Security Communications Team during crises to ensure “official information” gets maximum visibility.6

•Counter Disinformation Cell, which is part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Both monitor social media and combat “fake news” about science in general and COVID-19 in particular, with “fake news” being anything that contradicts the World Health Organization’s guidance.7

•Government Communications Headquarters (QCHQ), an intelligence and security organization that provides information to the U.K. government and the armed forces. According to Dodsworth, QCHQ personnel, and even members of the 77th Brigade, have been enlisted as so-called sockpuppets and trolls to combat anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging on social media.

According to Dodsworth, there are many others. In her book, she claims at least 10 different government departments in the U.K. are working with “behavioral insights teams” to manipulate the public.

We’re Just Seeing It Now
Importantly, government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, for myriad PR purposes, and while the pandemic may be winding down, Dodsworth warns that more and more behavioral scientists are being hired:8
“It’s growing and growing. Right now, I feel we are in a maelstrom of nudge,” she says. “In the past, there have been calls to consult the public on the use of behavioral psychology, and those calls have come from the behavioral scientists themselves. And yet it hasn’t happened. We haven’t yet been consulted on the use of subconscious techniques which effectively strip away our choices …
I fervently hope this book [‘The State of Fear’] is actually going to inspire a much-needed conversation about the use of fear, not just in the epidemic, but the way we use behavioral psychology overall.
It’s not just a genie that has been let out the bottle. It’s like we’ve unleashed a Hydra and you can keep chopping its head off, but they keep employing more of these behavioral scientists throughout different government departments. It’s very much how the Government now does business. It’s the business of fear …
I think ultimately people don’t want to be manipulated. People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right.”
Fear Is Contagious 5:17 min

Fear has long been the tool of tyrants. It’s profoundly effective, in part because it spreads from person to person, just like a virus. The contagion of fear is the topic of the Nova “Gross Science” video above, originally aired in mid-February 2017. Among animals, emotional distress responses are telegraphed through pheromones emitted through various bodily secretions such as sweat and saliva.

As explained in the video, when encountering what is perceived as a serious threat, animals with strong social structures, such as bees and ants, will release alarm pheromone. The scent attracts other members of the hive or colony to collectively address the threat.

Humans appear to have a very similar capability. When scared or stressed, humans produce chemosignals, and while you may not consciously recognize the smell of fear or stress, it can have a subconscious impact, making you feel afraid or stressed too.

Humans also tend to mimic the feelings of those around us, and this is yet another way through which an emotion can spread like wildfire through a community or an entire nation — for better or worse. Behavioral psychologists refer to this as “emotional contagion,” and it works both positive and negative emotions.

For example, if you’re greeted by a smile when meeting someone, you’re likely to smile back, mimicking their facial expression and behavior. If someone looks at you with an angry scowl, you’re likely to suddenly feel angry too, even if you weren’t before and have no subjective reason to — other than that someone looked at you the “wrong” way.

However, while both positive and negative emotions are contagious, certain emotions spread faster and easier than others. Research cited in the Nova report found that “high arousal” emotions such as awe (high-arousal positive emotion) and anger or anxiety (high-arousal negative emotion) are more “viral” than low-arousal emotions such as happiness or sadness.

The Nova report also points out that researchers have been mining Twitter and other social media data to better understand how emotions are spread, and the types of messages that spread the fastest. However, they ignored the primary culprits, Google and Facebook both of which steal your private data and use it to manipulate your behavior.

At the time, in 2017, they said this information was being harvested and used to develop ways to avoid public messaging that might incite mass panic. But the COVID-19 pandemic suggests the complete opposite. Clearly, behavioral experts have been busy developing ways to generate maximum fear, anxiety and panic.

Part 1 of 2


TB Fanatic
Part 2 of 2

How to Inoculate Yourself Against Negative Contagion
At the end of the report, Nova cites research detailing three effective ways to “immunize” yourself against negative emotional contagions.
  1. Distract yourself from the source of the negative contagion — In the case of pandemic fearporn, that might entail not reading or listening to mainstream media news that for the past year have proven themselves incapable of levelheadedness.
  2. Project your own positive emotions back at the source of the negative contagion — If talking to someone who is fearful, they might end up “catching” your optimism rather than the other way around.
  3. Speak up — If someone is unwittingly spreading “negative vibes,” telling them so might help them realize what they’re doing. (This won’t work if the source is knowingly and purposely spreading fear or anxiety though.)
Pandemic of Panic

Video on website 3:05 min

In a recent Tweet,9 Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer who researches the root causes of chronic disease, shared a short video detailing the root cause of the panic pandemic. Why has the whole world seemingly gone mad from fear?

As explained by Cummins, the outsized level of public fear is the result of a catastrophic feedback loop system where political and mainstream media drivers are pushing fear onto the public, and public fears are then feeding the media (fear sells) and pushing politicians to take action, which generates more fear messages. And so, round and round it goes.

However, at a certain point, this engine of fear starts losing steam. To keep the pandemic pandemonium going, academics bearing doomsday predictions were brought in to scare politicians and provide more fearporn fodder for the media.

Aiding the academic drivers are unelected, undemocratic organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Big Pharma (just to name a few), all of which support these academic doomsday prophets from behind the scenes or openly promote them.

All of the organizations Cummins mentions are part of a technocratic, unelected elite that are making decisions for the entire world. If we were to somehow shut down this secondary engine that feeds into the first, the global insanity would probably start to abate.

The question is, can that be done? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has likened our current predicament to “an apocalyptical battle,”10 as we’re facing formidable undemocratic forces with seemingly unlimited financial resources, political influence and the ability to control the global landscape of communications.

We’re facing a globalist agenda that ultimately seeks to gain total control by stripping away human rights and the rights of countries, and they’re using “biosecurity” as justification for it all.

Exposing the Grand Plan
As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report,11 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.

It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, antihumanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:12
“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”
In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” journalist Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:13

Rumble video on website 2:09:00 min
“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’
Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties … The practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:
One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).
And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’
The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”
These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand-new financial instruments that can then be traded. For example, Zero-Budget Natural Farming is now being introduced in India. This is a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.

The Pandemic Has Been a Psychological Operation
There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.

It goes without saying that to radically transform every last part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool for inducing compliance there is.

The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.

Social Engineering Is Central to Technocratic Rule
Technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”

The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this first-hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the WHO, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.

If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. So, we simply must keep pushing for transparency, truth, medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy.

Recognizing that the fear we feel has been carefully manufactured can help free us from its grip, and once we — en masse — no longer believe the lies being put before us, the engine driving the fear and panic will eventually run out of steam.



TB Fanatic

Biden Wants To Seize Control Of Local Land-Use Regulations
by CD Media StaffJune 19, 202112180

Reprinted with permission Mises Institute by Matt Ray

In recent years, there’s been a push to move zoning decisions further from the local level. In 2019, Oregon passed House Bill 2001, making it the first statewide law to abolish single-family zoning in many areas. By expanding the state government’s jurisdiction to include zoning decisions previously handled by local agencies, the law entails an alarming centralization of state power. This was quickly followed by the introduction of similar bills in Virginia, Washington, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Now President Biden is attempting to increase federal influence over local zoning.

Included in Biden’s American Jobs Plan is a proposal that would award grants to jurisdictions that move to eliminate single-family zoning and other land-use policies the administration deems harmful. Biden’s plan has been widely opposed by conservatives and libertarians alike, but some libertarians view this zoning proposal as the plan’s silver lining. These libertarians hope federal incentives will remove government obstacles to affordable housing. To be sure, government regulations at every level increase costs and violate property rights. However, political centralization will not reduce government. To the contrary, centralization must be understood as an expansion and concentration of state power. Instead of furthering property rights, centralization will promote a one-size-fits-all approach regardless of homeowner preferences.

At this point, some may object that unlike the laws introduced at the state level, Biden’s proposal could be resisted by simply refusing the grants. Indeed, a White House Official describes Biden’s approach to zoning as “purely carrot, no stick.” However, this offers little reassurance. Experience has shown that governments cannot be relied upon to refuse funding, and as Murray Rothbard points out, “[G]overnment subsidy inevitably brings government control.” Once the public becomes accustomed to the federal standards and local governments become dependent on the federal money, there’s little to stop them from accepting those same standards as laws. We need only look at education to see where federal subsidies can lead.

The zoning issue is instructive, because it demonstrates both how the federal government can seize control of local functions through the back door, and how a move from the local to state level can lead to further centralization. Given that centralization moves decisions further from individual property owners and ultimately in the direction of supranational government, federal control of zoning is the logical next step. Decentralization, by contrast, would be a step toward self-determination.

One of the more common arguments against local control holds that zoning cannot be left to localities because local zoning is often exclusionary. But this position is completely untenable. If a property owner finds his control over his own property limited by zoning ordinances, then his opposition is justified, because the ordinances violate his property rights. However, opposition to zoning cannot be justified simply because it’s exclusionary. After all, private property is inherently exclusionary. Hence, if zoning is opposed on the grounds that it’s exclusionary, then the concept of private property can be opposed on the same grounds. Moreover, if all neighborhoods were completely private, we could expect some neighborhoods to be more exclusive than is presently the case. Rothbard explains,
With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community.
Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflict, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.
As we have seen, neighborhoods would be as exclusive or inclusive as property owners wish them to be if all neighborhoods were privately owned. Some would only allow single-family homes while others would permit duplexes and multifamily homes. It should therefore be clear that a uniform zoning code cannot represent the wishes of property owners in different locales.

In distinct contrast, one of the benefits of localism is that the wishes of property owners tend to be better represented at the local level. Astonishingly, the ostensibly libertarian Reason magazine uses this same point to argue in favor of moving zoning decisions to the state level. They approvingly quote Emily Hamilton of the Mercatus Center arguing that local policymakers are too beholden to local property owners.

Yet, localism is the better strategy here, because local regulations are more easily avoided than state regulations. If a local government’s regulations prove too onerous, it risks the loss of its most productive citizens to the next city or town. However, as a state expands the territory under its control, it becomes more difficult for citizens to escape its jurisdiction. Thus, there’s less reason for a large, centralized state to refrain from imposing such regulations.

Opposition to any and all centralization is particularly important when the centralizing measure sounds superficially appealing. This could be a supposed deregulation measure, or to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s examples,
It would be anti-libertarian, for instance, to appeal to the United Nations to order the breakup of a taxi-monopoly in Houston, or to the US government to order Utah to abolish its state-certification requirement for teachers, because in doing so one would have illegitimately granted these state agencies jurisdiction over property that they plainly do not own (but others do): not only Houston or Utah, but every city in the world and every state in the United States.
In our case, it is certainly true that government regulations have increased costs and limited the supply of housing. That’s not the issue. The issue is that faraway governments will predictably be even less responsive to local demands in different neighborhoods. Incidentally, it would be remiss not to mention that most who would involve the state and federal governments in local zoning are conspicuously silent on monetary policy. Yet, an inflationary monetary policy is one of the major obstacles to affordable housing.

Make no mistake: the power libertarian centralists would grant the federal government in the name of deregulation would be used in service of the broader egalitarian project. Indeed, under Biden, HUD (the Department of Housing and Urban Development) has already moved to restore an Obama-era rule which previous housing secretary Ben Carson warned would essentially turn HUD into a national zoning board. Not surprisingly, this is being sold as an attempt to reduce “racial segregation.”

Empowering state legislatures—or worse, the federal government—to abolish local regulations would be a grave mistake. Rather than limiting government, centralization under any pretext will only add new layers of government. We must therefore resist all assaults on local self-government by more distant governments and combat government regulations at the location they occur. Otherwise, distant administrators will continue to seize power and local control will become increasingly trivial.


TB Fanatic

Have The Great Reset Technocrats Really Thought This Through?

MONDAY, JUN 21, 2021 - 02:00 AM
Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The only thing left to destroy in a world populated by elites alone, are other elites. It would seem that the desire to dominate others does not simply come to an end on its own.

With the UN World Food Program announcing that some 270 million people worldwide now face starvation, the ongoing debate about the real aims of the technocracy is profound. The question is whether their aim tends more towards major population reduction, or more towards a new type of slavery.

It appears that philosophical and long-term practical questions remain a mystery. We will argue that evil, not simply the influence of the base upon the superstructure, is at the core of this endeavor. We have defined evil as inflicting the highest degree of pain upon the greatest number of resisting subjects. In short, we have defined evil as sadism, inflicting evil because it brings satisfaction to those inflicting it.
Because evil is fundamentally a destructive force, it cannot create anything: nothing in it is truly novel nor of use to humanity. Its pleasures are short-lived and spurious. It is unsustainable, self-defeating, ultimately leading to self-destruction.

We have adequately assessed from any number of sources that nefarious interests are behind this process, who seek to make the process also about the exercise of power, in addition to several other aims (remaining in power, exercising power in ways consistent with their occult beliefs about evil, etc.). We understand that they are ‘evil’ because they involve a type of ‘power-over’ (as opposed to power-with/consent) which derives this power from fear-mongering and terrorism upon the population.

Terrorism here is defined as the operationalized use of fear, pain, and other injury towards socio-political aims.

Had their plans not been rooted in evil, they would have used soft-power tactics like manufacturing consent, to arrive at their ends.

The aim of the Great Reset is to transition the ruling plutocratic oligarchy into a technocratic one. The basis of plutocracy is finance, and the introduction of AI and automation eliminates the basis for finance as the foundation of an economy of scale. This is because automation and deflation move in tandem, making new technologies net losers. Therefore a new paradigm accounting for this post-financial ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, must be introduced.

Side-by-side comparison of auto-assembly line: 1920 vs. 2020 – ‘Humans need not apply

But the ideology of the Great Reset is based within the old financialist paradigm, which is one of cost externalization. When human beings are no longer involved in the valorization process in the production of goods and services, then humanity itself is the cost that requires externalization – elimination.

But how it is that sadism became the occult religion of the ruling class, presents a “chicken-or-the-egg” type of question. That is, did the corporate ideology mutate into occult sadism, or did occult sadism find its expression through the corporate ideology? This question will no doubt form the basis of later inquiry.
We often defer to nefarious motivations or processes in terms of ‘greed’, or ‘self-interest’, ‘power obsession’ or the ‘crisis of capital accumulation’, ‘speculative bubbles’.

And these do not suffice in the final analysis, though they provide explanatory power. The problem arises in predictive power, because while we face a crisis of diminishing returns due to automation (as the increasing tendency towards net loss on new large capital investments), the real psychological needs that motivate the present plutocracy as a power-group are actually undermined in significant and sudden population reduction, or new post-coercive technologies that eliminate human agency. This may seem counter-intuitive, but in light of an understanding of the self-defeating nature of evil, we will explore this question.

When we map out the probabilities of three intersecting policy vectors, we can understand this question even better. Those policy vectors are a.) neuralink/AI/Neural Implants/magneto proteins and related transhumanism, b.) depopulation as part of stated Agenda 2030 goals, c.) automation/roboticization, 4IR, and IoT.

This will follow from our last piece on the subject, The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials:

Neural Implants
The development and introduction of neural implants, magneto proteins, etc., can go in any number of directions. Some types of these promise to give elites ‘super-human’ cognitive abilities. However, another very practical application is to mandate that these are used on the general populace as to handicap them or control their thoughts in some way.

In that sense, neural implants can work like pharmaceuticals are used in psychiatry. In the creation of this sort of Huxleyesque ‘Brave New World’, we can easily see the continuation of a paradigm already existing today. This is one where it is common-place to find various predictable depressions, anxieties, and neuroticisms caused by contemporary social conditions, but treated psychiatrically instead of resolved socio-economically.

Neural implants can also perform a similar function, but go even further. Beyond emotions or basic effect on the re-uptake of certain hormones like serotonin, etc.; neural implants can direct thoughts or change whole cognitive processes. Beyond feelings, drives, and impulses, neural implants promise to produce actual thoughts in the minds of the subject.

LLNL engineer Vanessa Tolosa holds up a brain implant – credit: Extreme Tech Magazine, July 2014

In between these two is a hybrid form – nanotech and chemogenetics working with optogenetics. Because the delivery system to the brain can be through injection, nanolipids and other compounds can come in the form of shots. These can be delivered as part of a required ‘vaccination’ regimen (insofar as that term has been redefined), as nanotech features already in the Covid-19 shot.

Therefore, such can be included – whether disclosed to the public or not – in required vaccinations.

The development of these would seem, however, to be a technology that would support slavery, but does not rule out genocide. Certainly the ability to control the thoughts of a population would greatly mitigate risk in the view of the state apparatus, especially as it moves towards genocide.

Depopulation: Myths vs. Facts

Population control and population reduction have long been policy at various institutions and think tanks committed to global governance, from the UN to the World Economic Forum. It was a part of the UN’s Millennium goals, and since the dawn of the 21st century, has been part of UN Agenda 2030.

It is important to now introduce a framework for understanding the problem of population in light of economic development. The long standing view is that economic development leads to population stagnation, even decline. The idea here is that education and urbanization are processes which lead towards better knowledge of basic family planning, in tandem with improved access to abortion and birth control.

The underlying postulate is that people naturally do not want to be burdened with children, that children are an affront to freedom in the abstract. The formula is that as people are better educated and have more meaningful work and interesting lives, they know both how to prevent pregnancy and also no longer have ‘primitive’ inclinations towards large family building.

This mythology was built up around a notion that people are fundamentally self-interested in the narrowest sense, to the exclusion of other desires, needs, and impulses. They are presented as the norm such to furthermore create a broader culture which opposes procreation.

Instead, the real mechanism pushing population stagnation in the 1st world are increased pressures of work, and increased costs of living. Rather than ascribing population stagnation to improved conditions of life, these are more related to austere conditions imposed by late modernity. The costs of property, of rents, of food, and also because of the decline in quality of goods through increased planned obsolescence, has placed more economic pressure on individuals and couples. It has led to the requirement that both members of a household are working full-time. And even with this, home ownership in cosmopolitan centers is practically impossible for most. Austerity has also led to stagnation in life expectancy.

This truth is exposed in actual policy papers like “New strategies for slowing population growth” (1995).

Here, the doublespeak is evident, with easily decipherable phrases within it; “…reduce unwanted pregnancies by expanding services that promote reproductive choice and better health, to reduce the demand for large families by creating favorable conditions for small families…”. What could possibly be meant by ‘create favorable conditions for small families’?

Economic development does not reduce population, but if we add austerity and demanding and inflexible work obligations, then we land on an answer. Economic prosperity, as it has for time immemorial, promises to greatly increase the population in the absence of a program of population reduction. Because an organic 4IR not brought in by the technocracy would decrease work obligations and increase quality of life markers, we would expect a population boom.

Consequently, projections that that population will top off at just under 10 billion by the 2060’s are as erroneous as they are linear. Without a technocracy working to actively reduce population, as they believe, an economy based on automation and AI would see a population explosion.

It is still likely that the would-be technocrats have indeed thought out the end-game, and that there are any number of possibilities that will allow them to harvest sadistic pleasure as an exercise of absolute power, in perpetuity. This might mean increasing fear of extermination far beyond actual population reduction. It could mean maintaining many aspects of agency for the controlled population, so that their pains are internalized in multivariate and complex fashions, that include confused feelings of self-blame, identifying with the abuser, resentment, regret, and also violations of will and dignity. Again, if will is not a factor, then all of these potential arenas of psychological pain are not present.

To frame the following, it is fundamental to understand that in a post-labor civilization, the status of humanity no longer exists upon a metric of utility. Either civilization exists to improve the human condition, or to increase human suffering. There are no trade-offs or costs. Society is either good or evil.

But evil is short lived and short-sighted, and this is why: Sudden population reduction is a fire-cracker, it explodes just once. The pleasure in the process of eradicating billions of people, and the fear, pain, and suffering this would cause, within the span of a few short years, only gets to be enjoyed once. It’s a sacrificial ritual upon the altar of Moloch that can only be performed one time.

Likewise with post-coercive technologies: Without agency, controlling people serves no purpose in terms of violating their own will or desire. Causing pain on a subject that does not resist because he has no will, gives the sadist much less pleasure than would pain on a subject against their will.

Moreover, the position of being elite is relative to a number of factors such as distribution of wealth, power, and/or privilege, and the sheer numbers in terms of population, that one possesses these advantages over.

If there are only elites remaining, then they would have merely introduced a new kind of egalitarian society on the foundation of superabundance and a miniscule human population. If living conditions of an existing humanity can be greatly reduced, then the relative privilege and luxury enjoyed by the elites grows in that proportion.

Absent some radical life-extending technology, it is conceivable that science and technology have already reached the zenith point at which privilege and luxury cannot be furthered. A reasonable solution would be to reduce living conditions for others so as to enhance their own relative privilege. The greater number of people who live in reduced conditions, the more privileged one’s position of privilege actually is.

Likewise, it would seem that maintaining some human population as ‘possessions’ would serve to augment ownership over human beings, perhaps the most valuable type of possession because they are aware that they are owned – but only if that humiliates them. For what other purpose is there for slavery, in a world without human labor?

Does it have any meaning, or is any satisfaction achieved, by governing over people without the possibility to have the will to either consent, or conversely, resent the ruler? Here we can understand it along these lines: the possibility for agency means that governing can happen with their support, or against their will.

But neural implant control over cognitive processes, eliminates the possibility for will, which would deprive technocrats of the pleasure of ruling with or against the will of the ruled.

Therefore, the destructive evil framework of those behind the Great Reset is revealed. The use of strategy, planning, and cunning to achieve their desired result is prevalent. But have they examined the foundation of their desires? Do they understand what their victory would deliver to them?

The only thing left to destroy in a world populated by elites alone, are other elites. It would seem that the desire to dominate others does not simply come to an end on its own.

For these reasons, it is likely that some elites have seen the problem in this end game. This would explain the inter-elite conflict which we have explored previously, and will return to in the near future.


TB Fanatic

Manufacturing (New Normal) "Reality"

SUNDAY, JUN 20, 2021 - 04:30 PM
Authored by CJ Hopkins via,

The ultimate goal of every totalitarian system is to establish complete control over society and every individual within it in order to achieve ideological uniformity and eliminate any and all deviation from it. This goal can never be achieved, of course, but it is the raison d’être of all totalitarian systems, regardless of what forms they take and ideologies they espouse. You can dress totalitarianism up in Hugo Boss-designed Nazi uniforms, Mao suits, or medical-looking face masks, its core desire remains the same: to remake the world in its paranoid image … to replace reality with its own “reality.”

We are right in the middle of this process currently, which is why everything feels so batshit crazy. The global capitalist ruling classes are implementing a new official ideology, in other words, a new “reality.” That’s what an official ideology is. It’s more than just a set of beliefs. Anyone can have any beliefs they want. Your personal beliefs do not constitute “reality.” In order to make your beliefs “reality,” you need to have the power to impose them on society. You need the power of the police, the military, the media, scientific “experts,” academia, the culture industry, the entire ideology-manufacturing machine.

There is nothing subtle about this process. Decommissioning one “reality” and replacing it with another is a brutal business. Societies grow accustomed to their “realities.” We do not surrender them willingly or easily. Normally, what’s required to get us to do so is a crisis, a war, a state of emergency, or … you know, a deadly global pandemic.

During the changeover from the old “reality” to the new “reality,” the society is torn apart. The old “reality” is being disassembled and the new one has not yet taken its place. It feels like madness, and, in a way, it is. For a time, the society is split in two, as the two “realities” battle it out for dominance. “Reality” being what it is (i.e., monolithic), this is a fight to the death. In the end, only one “reality” can prevail.

This is the crucial period for the totalitarian movement. It needs to negate the old “reality” in order to implement the new one, and it cannot do that with reason and facts, so it has to do it with fear and brute force. It needs to terrorize the majority of society into a state of mindless mass hysteria that can be turned against those resisting the new “reality.” It is not a matter of persuading or convincing people to accept the new “reality.” It’s more like how you drive a herd of cattle. You scare them enough to get them moving, then you steer them wherever you want them to go. The cattle do not know or understand where they are going. They are simply reacting to a physical stimulus. Facts and reason have nothing to do with it.

And this is what has been so incredibly frustrating for those of us opposing the roll-out of the “New Normal,” whether debunking the official Covid-19 narrative, or “Russiagate,” or the “Storming of the US Capitol,” or any other element of the new official ideology. (And, yes, it is all one ideology, not “communism,” or “fascism,” or any other nostalgia, but the ideology of the system that actually rules us, supranational global capitalism. We’re living in the first truly global-hegemonic ideological system in human history. We have been for the last 30 years. If you are touchy about the term “global capitalism,” go ahead and call it “globalism,” or “crony capitalism,” or “corporatism,” or whatever other name you need to.

Whatever you call it, it became the unrivaled globally-hegemonic ideological system when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s. Yes, there are pockets of internal resistance, but it has no external adversaries, so its progression toward a more openly totalitarian structure is logical and entirely predictable.)

Anyway, what has been so incredibly frustrating is that many of us have been operating under the illusion that we are engaged in a rational argument over facts (e.g., the facts of Russiagate, Literal-Hitlergate, 9/11, Saddam’s WMDs, Douma, the January 6 “insurrection,” the official Covid narrative, etc.)
This is not at all what is happening. Facts mean absolutely nothing to the adherents of totalitarian systems.

You can show the New Normals the facts all you like. You can show them the fake photos of people dead in the streets in China in March of 2020. You can show them the fake projected death rates. You can explain how the fake PCR tests work, how healthy people were deemed medical “cases.” You can show them all the studies on the ineffectiveness of masks. You can explain the fake “hospitalization” and “death” figures, send them articles about the unused “emergency hospitals,” the unremarkable age-and-population-adjusted death rates, cite the survival rates for people under 70, the dangers and pointlessness of “vaccinating” children. None of this will make the slightest difference.

Or, if you’ve bought the Covid-19 narrative, but haven’t completely abandoned your critical faculties, you can do what Glenn Greenwald has been doing recently. You can demonstrate how the corporate media have intentionally lied, again and again, to whip up mass hysteria over “domestic terrorism.”

You can show people videos of the “violent domestic terrorists” calmly walking into the Capitol Building in single file, like a high-school tour group, having been let in by members of Capitol Security. You can debunk the infamous “fire-extinguisher murder” of Brian Sicknik that never really happened. You can point out that the belief that a few hundred unarmed people running around in the Capitol qualifies as an “insurrection,” or an “attempted coup,” or “domestic terrorism,” is delusional to the point of being literally insane. This will also not make the slightest difference.

I could go on, and I’m sure I will as the “New Normal” ideology becomes our new “reality” over the course of the next several years. My point, at the moment, is … this isn’t an argument. The global-capitalist ruling classes, government leaders, the corporate media, and the New Normal masses they have instrumentalized are not debating with us. They know the facts. They know the facts contradict their narratives. They do not care. They do not have to. Because this isn’t about facts. It’s about power.

I’m not saying that facts don’t matter. Of course they matter. They matter to us. I’m saying, let’s recognize what this is. It isn’t a debate or a search for the truth. The New Normals are disassembling one “reality” and replacing it with a new “reality.” (Yes, I know that reality exists in some fundamental ontological sense, but that isn’t the “reality” I’m talking about here, so please do not send me angry emails railing against Foucault and postmodernism.)

The pressure to conform to the new “reality” is already intense and it’s going to get worse as vaccination passes, public mask-wearing, periodic lockdowns, etc., become normalized. Those who don’t conform will be systematically demonized, socially and/or professionally ostracized, segregated, and otherwise punished. Our opinions will be censored. We will be “canceled,” deplatformed, demonitized, and otherwise silenced. Our views will be labeled “potentially harmful.”

We will be accused of spreading “misinformation,” of being “far-right extremists,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “anti-global-capitalist violent domestic terrorists,” or just garden variety “sexual harassers,” or whatever they believe will damage us the most.

This will happen in both the public and personal spheres. Not just governments, the media, and corporations, but your colleagues, friends, and family will do this. Strangers in shops and restaurants will do this. Most of them will not do it consciously. They will do it because your non-conformity represents an existential threat to them … a negation of their new “reality” and a reminder of the reality they surrendered in order to remain a “normal” person and avoid the punishments described above.
This is nothing new, of course. It is how “reality” is manufactured, not only in totalitarian systems, but in every organized social system. Those in power instrumentalize the masses to enforce conformity with their official ideology. Totalitarianism is just its most extreme and most dangerously paranoid and fanatical form.

So, sure, keep posting and sharing the facts, assuming you can get them past the censors, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we’re up against.

We’re not going to wake the New Normals up with facts. If we could, we would have done so already. This is not a civilized debate about facts. This is a fight. Act accordingly.


TB Fanatic
7:38 min

Here’s How Far The Great Reset of America Has Already Come

Jun 21, 2021

Glenn Beck

Our sacred republic has never been in more danger than it is today. After just four months in the White House, the Biden administration is already resetting American life: our free and fair voting system, our kids' education, our communities and families, and even our suburbs. In a recent Glenn TV episode, Glenn takes a look at how far The Great Reset of America has come and the fundamental transformations that Biden is pushing for next...


TB Fanatic

With Its Power Grid On The Verge Of Failure, California Begs Residents To Change Their EV Charging Routines

TUESDAY, JUN 22, 2021 - 05:05 PM
It appears as though California's plans to become an environmental and socialist utopia are running face first into reality.

The latest dose of reality came this week when the state, facing triple digit temperatures, began to "fret" about pressure on the state's power grid as a result of everybody charging their electric vehicles all at once.
The state's power grid operators have been telling residents to "relieve pressure" from the grid by charging their EVs at off-peak hours, Newsweek wrote.

Twice last week the California Independent System Operator (ISO) told residents to conserve energy voluntarily, including asking to charge their EVs at certain off-peak times. The ISO also suggested "avoiding use of large appliances and turning off extra lights," the report says.

The state's Flex Alert Twitter account posted on June 18: "Now is the perfect time to do a load of laundry.

Remember to use major appliances, charge cars and devices before #FlexAlert begins at 6 p.m. today."

Despite the fact that the state seems hell bent on converting all of its residents to EVs, Patty Monahan, the lead commissioner on transportation at the California Energy Commission, said that when residents choose to charge their vehicles will be important "in keeping the power grid balanced".

"Charging behaviors matter when it comes to California grid goals," she said. "By incentivizing, primarily through rates, charging behaviors that capitalize on when renewable energy is being generated—we basically have a win for the grid, and we have a win for the drivers in terms of reduced rates. Rates are a climate strategy, and California plans on using rates to help drive the charging behaviors that are going to help the state electrify transportation while cutting carbon from the grid and saving ratepayers and drivers money."

Matthew Moniot, a researcher with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said that most drivers who charge at night "will have to change" their routines: "If you look at aggregate load across the grid, it tends to spike in the evening hours whenever people come home." He called it a "tricky problem" that relies on "how much can we move what's currently overnight charging to be during the daytime hours, when generation may be more excessive."


TB Fanatic

A Record Buyout Is Just the Start as Wealthy Flee Tax Hike
Melissa Karsh, Michelle F. Davis and Devon Pendleton
Tue, June 22, 2021, 8:42 AM·7 min read

(Bloomberg) -- For 110 years, four generations of Mills family members earned their money by expanding their great-grandfather’s Chicago apron business into a medical supplier that ranked among the nation’s largest private companies.
But soon after Democrats turned their attention toward raising taxes for the wealthy this year, the family signed a deal to cash out billions.

It was no coincidence, according to people close to the more-than $30 billion transaction, which sold part of Medline Industries Inc. to a consortium of Wall Street investors in the health-care industry’s biggest leveraged buyout. The threat of subjecting billions in proceeds to additional capital gains taxes motivated the clan to get it done before the end of 2021, when higher rates could take effect, the people said.

Such maneuvers are suddenly in the works throughout the opaque world of private U.S. corporations, as founders and their offspring discreetly consult tax experts and bankers with a pointed question: How much might they save by selling quickly?

Suddenly, in just a matter of a few months, the vast dealmaking machinery that caters to wealthy entrepreneurs has started buzzing with a level of activity that some industry veterans say they haven’t seen before, potentially setting up a cascade of sales for later this year. A combination of high valuations on companies and potentially higher taxes in the future is proving to be a potent motivator.

A spokeswoman for the Mills family said there were a number of family members not involved in the business and the sale was a way to provide liquidity to the family while maintaining leadership of the company. Earlier this month, Medline President Andy Mills told the Chicago Tribune that about 20 to 30 family members will benefit.

The spokeswoman didn’t address the role taxes played in the deal -- a motive that hasn’t been reported before.

The family may be worth about $30 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Many scenes are playing out far beyond Wall Street’s gilded towers: In an old, brick roofing-supply building in Birmingham, Alabama, executives atop boutique M&A firm Founders Advisors are settling into a freshly expanded office space and completing a hasty hiring spree to increase staffing 50%. They’re signing up millionaire owners of companies, eager to start the process of selling at least part of what they built.

“For as long as we’ve been in business, it’s the most vibrant” market yet, Chief Executive officer Duane Donner said. More than half of his clients hail from nearby states and Texas, where the firm has two outposts. “We’ve got more engagements than we’ve ever had.” The No. 1 reason, he said: “taxes.”

In the Midwest, the co-founder of an online marketing company is giving up his dream of stepping into a less active role and letting the business keep growing in coming years under the next generation. Now, selling just makes more financial sense, he said, speaking on the condition his company not be identified. He and his partners are in the midst of setting up their exit.

Founders aren’t the only owners facing pressures. In Manhattan, Boston and other hubs of the private equity world, senior managers are talking with companies in their portfolios about potentially reducing or selling stakes this year to lower tax liabilities and maximize returns, executives and their advisers said in interviews. They’re also looking for opportunities to buy companies that might come up for sale because of tax changes. Company owners would be smart to get out now, one private equity executive noted, because by this fall in the U.S. there will be too many sellers crowding into the market.

“It’s clear from a seller’s perspective -- whether family-owned or private equity sponsor-owned -- that there is increasing debate,” said Rick Landgarten, the global head of health-care and real estate advisory teams at Barclays Plc, said in an interview. They’re asking “‘Can I get done this year? Because I expect sometime later this year or early next year for there to be tax-rate increases.’”
Calling Lawmakers

The irony is that Democrats haven’t even coalesced around a plan yet.

President Joe Biden has proposed raising the capital-gains tax rate to 39.6% from 20% for those earning $1 million. But any such measure almost certainly faces months of negotiation before it could be passed. More than 20 House Democrats from high-tax states have threatened to reject Biden’s tax plans unless they also address the so-called SALT cap imposed under President Donald Trump. And recently, a new debate has broken out among Democrats over whether to also seek an even more controversial wealth tax.

QuickTake: How Capital Gains Are Taxed and What Biden Would Do
Meanwhile, company owners are eager for certainty -- pressing tax experts, bankers and even their congressional representatives to specify how much higher tax bills will jump if they wait to sell in the future. Many are concerned that Democrats might thwart such an escape anyway, by making any capital gains tax hike retroactive. Biden’s proposal assumes the increase would be retroactive to late April, when it was proposed. But it’s unclear whether Congress would approve such a measure.

“Frankly, just the volatility of the tax discussion -- what will pass, when will it pass, whether it will be retroactive -- is making it hard to drive the boat when you are not entirely sure what each of these entrepreneurs should do and how they should plan,” Brad Bernstein, managing partner at private equity firm FTV Capital, which specializes in working with founders of fintech businesses.

Some are floating alternative tax strategies.

Private equity funds could, for example, decide to take portfolio companies public and then have the general partners collect their performance fee, known as the carry, in shares, said Bernstein. That would put off capital gains and income taxes until they sell their stock.

Another approach for company owners is to trigger a tax bill this year, such as by moving abroad and renouncing U.S. citizenship or engaging in other transfers that constitute a deemed sale, said David Lesperance, an international tax and immigration adviser at Lesperance & Associates. The idea is to pay taxes before rates rise, giving owners more time to arrange a sale with optimal terms.
Eager Buyers

To be sure, there are many factors contributing to talk of deals. The stock market is near an all-time high, burnishing valuations of private companies. Buyout firms are loaded with dry powder for takeovers after the pandemic. Blank-check firms known as SPACs, which flooded into the stock market in the past year, are under pressure to find desirable takeover targets. Low interest rates also make it easier for companies to finance strategic acquisitions. And investor interest in IPOs remains robust, behooving private equity firms to unload holdings before it softens.

It’s all adding up to a surge in dealmaking. The value of global deals has raced past the $2 trillion milestone this year, and could hit a new first-half record, data compiled by Bloomberg show.About 65% of the private equity executives surveyed by EY in February and March expect changes in tax policy to have an impact on the timing of their exits.

“We’ve seen a strong resurgence in exit activity overall,” Pete Witte, EY global private equity lead analyst, said in an interview. “As we go into the balance of the year, the tax piece will be particularly important here as well.”

(Updates with Mills family comment in sixth paragraph, and volume of deal-making in third from last paragraph.)
Last edited:


TB Fanatic

Updating Lamm’s Plan to Destroy America: End Home Ownership, Immiserate Americans, Incite Anti-White Hate


Veteran immigration patriots will recall Governor Richard Lamm [D-CO] and his famous 2003 speech “I Have a Plan to Destroy America” .He outlined nightmarish proposals that have now become unchallengeable public policy: making America a bilingual country; encouraging multiculturalism instead of assimilation to the Historic American Nation; promotion of divided loyalties; and, perhaps most presciently, getting “the big foundations and big business to give these efforts a lot of money” in the cause of “Victimology.” From the perspective of even just 15 years ago, America looks conquered and the Regime Media wants to finish the job of dispossession [The Washington Post: Treat America Like a Conquered Nation, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, June 11, 2021]. I’d like to update Governor Lamm’s speech with what’s going on today.

My revised plan to destroy America would have three parts:
  • First, make sure ordinary Americans can’t own property and thus build wealth by increasing equity in their homes.
  • Second, immiserate Americans with low wages and create a second permanent underclass by what President Joe Biden has called “unrelentingmass immigration.
  • Finally, systematically teach those groups who are already given special privileges, protections and set-asides by government that they are actually oppressed and need to demand more.
All three elements of the program are in place today. If you want to see what our future looks like, it’s probably South Africa but worse.

First, let’s consider the question of property ownership. A popular meme quotes from a video from the World Economic Forum, a “non-governmental organization” that helps organize some of the most powerful people in politics, economics, and culture in pursuit of common goals. A video from this group in 2018 tells us that in the near future “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”

1:29 min

Reuters assures us this is taken out of context and is simply a possible prediction and an attempt to “start a discussion” [Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030, February 25, 2021].

Of course, given that the World Economic Forum is also where “The Great Reset” (also promoted by Time) and the endlessly repeated “Build Back Better” slogans come from, perhaps we should be a little suspicious of the Regime Media’s assurances and start to wonder where this “discussion” is going [To build back better, we must reinvent capitalism. Here’s how, by Peter Bakker and John Elkingo, World Economic Forum, July 13, 2020].

If anything like one of the Regime Media’s “conversations about race,” it’s going to be something more like a screeching lecture from our rulers.

Thus, Bloomberg tells us that home ownership is probably going to be out of the question for most Americans but this is actually a good thing.
Rising real-estate prices are stoking fears that homeownership, long considered a core component of the American dream, is slipping out of reach for low- and moderate-income Americans. That may be so — but a nation of renters is not something to fear. In fact, it’s the opposite.
[America Should Become a Nation of Renters, by Karl Smith, June 17, 2021]
Of course, this is the exact opposite of the “Affordable Family Formation” that a serious country would pursue for its citizens or constituents. The financialization of the housing market means that people can’t build up equity and wealth by owning and developing property. A country of renters isn’t a country at all, but simply a conglomeration of consumers who have no ties to any locality, community, or people.

Perhaps that’s the point.

Interestingly enough, someone can afford to buy all those homes. It turns out that it’s BlackRock, among other investment firms [BlackRock, other investment firms ‘killing the dream’ of home ownership, journalist says, by Charles Creitz, Fox News, June 12, 2021]. BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world and one of the leading champions of Woke Capital [Larry Fink’s 2021 letter to CEOs, Blackrock].

Ben Shapiro assures us that this is all just fine, the free market at work and all that.


He doesn’t mention that BlackRock essentially operates as an arm of the government, helping the Fed manage bailout payments and bond purchases [Massive bailout leaves Wall Street giant exposed to fire from all sides, by Victoria Guida, Politico, June 7, 2020].

As is so often the case on every issue that matters, the liberal media is on the same side as Respectable Right opinion [This is wealth redistribution”: Blackrock and other Institutional Investors Buying Entire Neighborhoods At Huge Premiums, by “Tyler Durden,” ZeroHedge, June 12, 2021].

All agree the real problem isn’t BlackRock, but local governments who don’t want their communities turned into overdeveloped urban hellscapes.
And, wouldn’t you know it, the Biden Administration is advancing a plan, under the guise of “infrastructure,” that would prevent communities from limiting neighborhoods to single-family housing. It’s simply a continuation of the “flood the suburbs” agenda the Obama Administration pursued with its housing policy [AFFH: Four Letters that Spell TROUBLE, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, September 18, 2020].

Who will be populating these emerging favelas? Naturally, the worldwide flood of migrants (legal and illegal) that are coming to America now that border enforcement has essentially been abolished. Illegal immigration has surged by 674% from last May [Ted Cruz Wallops Joe Biden For Touring Europe Instead Of Inspecting Southern Border Crisis, by Wendell Husebo, Breitbart, June 15, 2021].

President Biden is already seeking to expand legal immigration, which will further the already disastrous housing conditions in tech hubs like San Francisco [Biden Aims to Rebuild and Expand Legal Immigration, by Michael Shear and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, New York Times, May 31, 2021].

This process leads to a negative feedback cycle. Progressives move away from cities suffering from soaring costs of living and crime and go to conservative areas, where they vote in the same destructive process they just fled [COVID-19 Set America’s Housing Market On Fire. That Could Alter U.S. Politics For A Generation, by Peter Lane Taylor, Forbes, March 11, 2021]. One is reminded of the “locust” aliens from Independence Day traveling from place to place, leaving desolation in their wake.

3:04 min

This population pressure from mass immigration is a feature, not a bug, from the Progressive perspective. The combination of endless immigration, population increase, and urbanization ensures a permanent Progressive majority.

It also means that any allegedly Progressive goals, such as reducing inequality or protecting the environment, become impossible to achieve. But who cares about that when you have power?

Of course, there’s a final ingredient for this program of national deconstruction to work. There must be eternal racial conflict and powerful incentives for people not to assimilate to a common culture. This is where Critical Race Theory comes in.

Perhaps uniquely in the history of the world, the American government is actually inciting its population into a state of permanent resentment and lawlessness, creating an ever-swelling parasitic class. There is no point at which “equity” can realistically be attained. And so the racket will continue forever.

We are already trapped in this situation with African-Americans, the bulk of whom at least have the excuse of having been brought here as slaves. (Vice President Kamala Harris does not have that excuse, her cringe-inducing attempts to relate to most black Americans notwithstanding.)

Mass immigration means that we are importing another permanent underclass, incentivized and rewarded by academia, media and the government into destroying American institutions.

The “country” will emerge at the other end of this process will be barely worthy of the name. It will be a landmass full of shiftless, random consumers desperately trying to flee each other but trapped by permanent financial serfdom. There will be no uniting culture, ethnicity, or even political myth. There will be just permanent, simmering conflict with an increasingly authoritarian government using naked repression against the naïve white Americans who keep the failed experiment stumbling along.

If I were deliberately trying to destroy the country, I wouldn’t be doing anything differently than what our rulers currently are.

If there’s one problem with Governor Lamm’s speech, it’s that he didn’t anticipate just how malevolent our Hostile Elite really is.


TB Fanatic
11:33 min

How The Fed could FORCE you into a new DIGITAL currency
Jun 23, 2021

Glenn Be

There’s a race happening NOW between the U.S. and China to see which power will develop a national, digital currency first. The U.S. wants develop a sovereign cryptocurrency that could give the government complete control — and most Americans don’t realize how close that plan is to fruition. Glenn describes the ‘probable journey to a digital dollar’ and explains how, once complete, it could allow for the government to BOX YOU IN. The Fed will have perfect, digital tracking of every single dollar spent in every single transaction completed…


TB Fanatic

The "Great Reset" Is Here, Part 1: The New Blueprint For Worldwide Inflation

WEDNESDAY, JUN 23, 2021 - 07:20 PM
Authored by James Rickards via,

For years, currency analysts (myself included) have looked for signs of an international monetary “reset” that would diminish the dollar’s role as the leading reserve currency and replace it with a substitute, which would be agreed upon at some Bretton Woods-style monetary conference.

Now, it looks like the move towards the long-expected Great Reset is accelerating.

At the recent G7 summit in the UK, G7 leaders gave their blessings to a $100 billion allocation of IMF special drawing rights (SDRs) to help lower-income countries address the COVID-19 crisis.

President Biden fully supports the idea. The White House issued the following statement:
The United States and our G7 partners are actively considering a global effort to multiply the impact of the proposed Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation to the countries most in need…
At potentially up to $100 billion in size, the proposed effort would further support health needs – including vaccinations…
A separate press release from the same day continued the same sentiment, stating, “We strongly support the effort to recycle SDRs to further support health needs.”

In another development, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said last Wednesday that she expected the fund’s governors to approve a $650 billion allocation of SDRs in mid-August.

What exactly are SDRs?
Basically, they’re world money.

In 1969, the IMF created the SDR, possibly to serve as a source of liquidity and alternative to the dollar.

In 1971, the dollar did devalue relative to gold and other major currencies. SDRs were issued by the IMF from 1970 to 1981. None were issued after 1981 until 2009 during the global financial crisis.

The 2009 issuance was a case of the IMF “testing the plumbing” of the system to make sure it worked properly. Because zero SDRs were issued from 1981–2009, the IMF wanted to rehearse the governance, computational, and legal processes for issuing SDRs.

The purpose was partly to alleviate liquidity concerns at the time, but it was also to make sure the system works in case a large, new issuance was needed on short notice. The 2009 experiment showed the system worked fine.

Since 2009, the IMF has proceeded in slow steps to create a platform for massive new issuances of SDRs and establish a deep liquid pool of SDR-denominated assets.

On January 7, 2011, the IMF issued a master plan for replacing the dollar with SDRs.

This included creating an SDR bond market, SDR dealers, and ancillary facilities such as repos, derivatives, settlement and clearance channels, and the entire apparatus of a liquid bond market.

A liquid bond market is critical. U.S. Treasury bonds are among the world’s most liquid securities, which makes the dollar a legitimate reserve currency.

The IMF study recommended that the SDR bond market replicate the infrastructure of the U.S. Treasury market, with hedging, financing, settlement and clearance mechanisms substantially similar to those used to support trading in Treasury securities today.

In August 2016, the World Bank announced that it would issue SDR-denominated bonds to private purchasers. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the largest bank in China, will be the lead underwriter on the deal.
In September 2016, the IMF included the Chinese yuan in the SDR basket, giving China a seat at the monetary table.

So, the framework has been created to expand the SDR’s scope.
The SDR can be issued in abundance to IMF members and used in the future for a select list of the most important transactions in the world, including balance-of-payments settlements, oil pricing, and the financial accounts of the world’s largest corporations, such as Exxon Mobil, Toyota, and Royal Dutch Shell.

The basic idea behind the SDR is that the global monetary system centered around the dollar is inherently unstable and needs to be reformed.

Part of the problem is due to a process called Triffin’s Dilemma, named after economist Robert Triffin. Triffin said that the issuer of a dominant reserve currency had to run trade deficits so that the rest of the world could have enough of the currency to buy goods from the issuer and expand world trade.

But, if you run deficits long enough, you would eventually go broke. This was said about the dollar in the early 1960s. The SDR would solve Triffin’s Dilemma.

I wrote about SDRs and the global elite plans for them in the second chapter of my 2016 book, The Road to Ruin.

Over the next several years, we will see the issuance of SDRs to transnational organizations, such as the U.N. and World Bank, for spending on climate change infrastructure and other elite pet projects outside the supervision of any democratically elected bodies.

I call this the New Blueprint for Worldwide Inflation.

But Triffin’s Dilemma is not the only dynamic that’s pushing the world away from the dollar.

In Part 2, we show you why the weaponization of the dollar by the U.S. government is pushing the world to seek alternatives.


TB Fanatic

We Now Know Why Creepy Bill Gates Invested in All of That US Farmland – It Likely Ties in With Lab-Grown Meat

By Jim Hoft
Published June 24, 2021 at 7:30am

Bill Gates wants the world to take the COVID vaccine maybe multiple times and now he’s buying up farmland across the US. In fact, Bill Gates owns more farmland than anyone else in America today.

Successful Farming reported that creepy Microsoft Billionaire Bill Gates is now the largest farm landowner in the US:

In 1994, the Gateses hired the former Putnam Investments bond-fund manager to diversify the couple’s portfolio away from the Microsoft co-founder’s 45 percent stake in the technology giant while maintaining comparable or better returns. According to a 2014 profile of Larson in the Wall Street Journal, these investments include a substantial stake in AutoNation, hospitality interests such as the Charles Hotel in Cambridge and the Four Seasons in San Francisco, and “at least 100,000 acres of farmland in California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, and other states … .” According to the Land Report 100 Research Team, that figure is currently more than twice that amount, which means Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has an alter ego: Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America.
So what is this guy planning? We think we now know.

Bill Gates is also a top investor of Memphis Meats — a group of radical animal rights activists working in a lab trying to grow meat from livestock cells. Their goal is to destroy the livestock industry, and because of that, they have become media darlings. According to Lonesome Lands blog they have been in many major national publications and last October they made the cover of Inc. Magazine.

According to the Memphis Meats investor page, Bill Gates is one of its top investors.

So it appears Bill Gates is partnering with Cargill, and PETA to end livestock production in the US.

And if Bill Gates owns the farmland then he can dictate what will and won’t be produced on American farms.

Creepy Bill Gates is going to change your diet whether you want him to or not.


TB Fanatic

The "Great Reset" Is Here, Part 2" The Real Russia Threat

THURSDAY, JUN 24, 2021 - 06:05 PM
Authored by James Rickards via, GOLD
Read Part 1 here...

I’ve written for years about different nations’ persistent efforts to dethrone the U.S. dollar as the leading global reserve currency and the main medium of exchange.

At the same time, I’ve said that such processes don’t happen overnight; instead, they happen slowly and incrementally over decades.

The dollar displaced sterling as the leading reserve currency in the twentieth century, but it took thirty years, from 1914 to 1944, to happen. The decline started with the outbreak of World War I and the UK’s liquidation of assets and money printing to finance the war.

It ended with the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 that cemented the dollar’s link to gold as the new global standard.

Even after the gold link was broken in 1971, the dollar standard remained because there was no good alternative. Then the 1974 deal with Saudi Arabia (along with other OPEC cartel members) to price oil in dollars created increased global demand for the dollar.

Because of the deal, dollars would be deposited with U.S. banks, so they could be loaned to developing economies, who could then buy U.S. manufactured goods and agricultural products.

This would help the global economy and allow the U.S. to maintain price stability. The Saudis would get more customers and a stable dollar, and the U.S. would force the world to accept dollars because everyone would need dollars to buy oil.

By the way, behind this “deal” was a not so subtle threat to invade Saudi Arabia and take the oil by force.

I personally discussed these invasion plans in the White House with Henry Kissinger’s deputy, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, at the time. But the Petro-Dollar plan worked brilliantly, and the invasion never happened.

Despite all this, nearly 50 years later, the erosion of the dollar’s role has begun and is visible in many metrics.

The dollar’s share of global reserves has fallen from 70% to 60% in the past 22-years. The dollar price of gold (an inverse measure of dollar strength) has gone from $250 per ounce to over $2,000 per ounce between August 1999 and August 2020 (it’s about $1,880 per ounce as of today).

The IMF’s special drawing right (SDR), Bitcoin, and gold (again) are waiting in the wings to step up as the dollar falters further.

The Russians, in particular, are moving quickly to protect themselves from this inevitable decline.

Russia has already increased gold as a percentage of its reserves to 20% (only the U.S., Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands have higher percentages of gold among the twenty largest developed economies).

Now, Russia will completely eliminate dollar holdings from its $119 billion National Wellbeing Fund, a sovereign wealth fund that holds oil wealth for the future benefit of the Russian people.

Russia will be able to execute this plan without severe disruption to either the gold market or the dollar market.

By itself, this move does not mean the end of the dollar as the leading reserve currency. But, it is one more step on the slow path toward the dollar’s inevitable decline as a trusted medium of exchange.

Even though the process is gradual, it can gain a lot of momentum in the final phases. It reminds me of a line from a Hemingway novel:

“How did you go bankrupt?” asked one character. “Two ways,” responded the other. “Gradually, then suddenly.”

When the rush for the exits begins in earnest, you don’t want to be the last one out the door. It’s a good idea to diversify into gold for about 10% of your investable assets if you haven’t already.

That way you’ll be keeping up with the Russians and be one step ahead of the dollar’s decline.

I believe that the world will have to return to some version of the gold standard, not because it wants to, but because it will have to in order to restore confidence in the global monetary system.

The real question is, will it be an orderly process or a chaotic one?


TB Fanatic

Delingpole: Climate Jackals Move In to Steal What Is Left of Your Freedoms
Chitra2016 / Wikimedia Commons

Meet Sir David King, climate jackal. He and his fellow scavengers (the collective noun for jackals, appropriately enough, is a ‘skulk’) are moving in to feed on the denuded carcass of what used to be your freedoms.

Remember those heady pre-2020 years when you could travel where you wished, fly without having to take expensive, punishing, invasive tests, and return home without having to spend days in quarantine or worse in a scummy ‘hotel’ being treated like a prisoner? Well, climate jackal King is going to make damn sure you never see a return to that happy era. That’s why he and his fellow jackals have formed something called the Climate Crisis Advisory Group.

Here‘s how the Guardian (or rather its similarly noisome Sunday sister the Observer) sees it:
The new body has been inspired by Independent Sage – the cluster of British scientists who have held UK ministers and civil servants to account for their lack of transparency and mishandling of the Covid pandemic.
The Climate Crisis Advisory Group, comprising 14 experts from 10 nations and every continent, aims to have more of an international reach and provide the global public with regular analysis about efforts to tackle the global heating and biodiversity crises.
Headed by the former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King, the new group will issue monthly updates about the state of the global environment at meetings that will be open to the media and the public. These online gatherings will be chaired by the BBC presenter Ade Adepitan.
“We are hoping that by putting expertise directly into the public domain we are reaching into policymakers’ decision processes, and into the financial sector and how they invest in our future,” King told the Observer. “We are not just going to say ‘this is the state of the global climate’, but also what should the global response be from governments and companies … What we do in the next five years will determine the future of humanity for the next millennium.”
Now it goes without saying that the Climate Crisis Advisory Group will be an abomination. It will be like a rancid, cancerous, pustulous, excrescence on Satan’s arse cheeks, only more noxious and more immediately damaging to yours and my wellbeing. Nothing this mendacious bunch of half-wits and bloviating shills for the New World Order say or do will contribute one jot to the health of the planet nor to the happiness of anyone living on it.

Sir David King poses after a briefing at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on November 17, 2015. NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP via Getty Images
But still, unfortunately, it is important that we pay attention to this organisation because, like Black Lives Matter, like Antifa, like critical race theory, like vaccines for 12-year-olds, like digital health passports and so on it is emblematic of the scary new world into which we are fast heading…

Some things you need to know:

First, these are left-wing/globalist activists. The fact that it’s an offshoot of Independent Sage is a big clue. A bit like SAGE, only more irrelevant, it’s just a pressure group for Marxists, eco-fascists and suchlike to browbeat anyone in government and the media who cares to listen into enforcing yet more authoritarianism in the name of public health or climate change or whatever the latest fashionable excuse happens to be.

Second, Sir David King’s very name at the head of the organisation is like a hallmark of guaranteed, 24-carat crap. King is a prat. He always was a prat. And a dangerous one at that. To those of us who have been following the climate change saga from the early days, his name is excruciatingly familiar. He’s one of those ‘experts’ whose predictions are invariably proved hopelessly wrong but yet has held enormous sway over government policy.

King was the pillock, for example, steered the Blair/Brown governments to push for more diesel vehicles, supposedly because it would be more carbon-friendly. Thousands of deaths and a policy u-turn later, King was forced to admit: ‘It turns out we were wrong.’

Before that, in cahoots with the similarly wrong-headed Neil Ferguson, he presided over the 2001 Foot and Mouth debacle in which millions of healthy animals were needlessly slaughtered.

Somewhere in between were the reams of rubbish King talked about global warming and climate change, matters about which clearly he knew little. But ignorance never stopped him putting on his Chief Science Adviser’s hat to preach what the government should do in order to avert this apparent problem about which he knew less than bugger all.

Here Paul Homewood recalls some of his choice idiocies:
He was also , of course, the clown who led us to believe that we would all have to live in Antarctica by the end of the century because of global warming.
At the same Environmental Select Committee in 2004, he also made some other equally ridiculous claims:
  • Ice at the South Pole is now 40% as thick as it used to be.
  • The Gulf Stream could turn off, leading Europe into a mini ice age
  • Hydrogen powered cars would see massive penetration in the market within 10 and 15 years
And in front of another Select Committee in 2014, he made the incredible claim that Hurricane Sandy was the first hurricane to hit so far north in America, a schoolboy error which a 2-minute google would have told him was absurd. And it was King, you may recall, who advised Tony Blair to promote diesel cars.
Christopher Booker revealed in his book. “The Real Global Warming Disaster”, how King attended a 2004 climate seminar in Moscow, and promptly attempted to get half of the speakers banned as they did not share his alarmist stance. When that failed, he tried to disrupt their speeches. Finally when challenged by one scientist, the malaria expert Paul Reiter, on one particular topic, King , seemingly unable to answer, simply left the room with his delegation.
Third, since when were matters as important as the freedom of the human race and the health of the global economy safely to be entrusted to a self-appointed lobby group of lefty activists and failed prognosticators? If, say, King was wrong on diesel, wrong on foot and mouth, wrong on hydrogen cars, wrong on Antarctic ice, why on earth would anyone trust his Climate Crisis Advisory Group to be right on anything in the future?

Here’s the main point: the kind of ‘experts’ who have been ruining your life for the last 18 months are exactly the same kind of authoritarian killjoys who were pushing the climate change scare narrative in the decades prior to 2020. These people haven’t gone away. Rather, they see Covid 19 as a beneficial crisis which they can exploit by trying to engineer it so that global Covid lockdowns and travel restrictions segue neatly into global ‘climate change’ lockdowns and travel restrictions. These people are all on the same team and they are all part of the same problem.

We cannot allow their drivel to be taken seriously. They deserve nothing but our loathing and contempt.


TB Fanatic

Stealth Goal Of Infrastructure Plan Could Be To Abolish The Suburbs By Bribing Towns To Change Zoning Laws

Towns could have to chose between forfeiting the money or allowing apartments in every neighborhood and allowing suburban lots to be subdivided for as many houses as will fit.

By Luke Rosiak
Jun 24, 2021

Ariel Skelley / The Image Bank / Getty Images

Democrats may use their massive “infrastructure” plan to bribe local governments to essentially abolish suburbs, by making grants contingent upon towns and counties allowing apartments in any neighborhood, including those currently limited to single-family homes.

That creates two scenarios, both of which benefit Democrats seeking power: If jurisdictions want to preserve a small-town feel, they must turn down the money, meaning the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars turns into a bonanza for Democratic-dominated cities, while leaving others out.

Or if centrist suburbs give in to the temptation to take the money, they would essentially be signing a contract to become architecturally dense, like cities — and once those apartments and townhouses were built and filled with residents, they’d likely become solidly Democrat, like most urban areas. Both outcomes would irrevocably and fundamentally transform the country.

USA Today reported in April that “Biden’s proposal would award grants and tax credits to cities that change zoning laws to bolster more equitable access to affordable housing. A house with a white picket fence and a big backyard for a Fourth of July barbecue may be a staple of the American dream, but experts and local politicians say multifamily zoning is key to combating climate change, racial injustice, and the nation’s growing affordable housing crisis.”

The logic is that minorities are “trapped in crowded neighborhoods” that are not pleasant to live in. Yet the solution, under this logic, appears to be making the places suburbanites live more crowded, with apartments and townhouses.

President Joe Biden reportedly reached a deal with a bipartisan group of senators on an outline for the stimulus Thursday, though the package could introduce more Democratic priorities during the “reconciliation” stage. Nine Republican senators who have been involved in infrastructure talks did not return a request for comment from The Daily Wire about whether zoning has been part of the discussions.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), one of the negotiators, has appeared focused on whether the plan would raise taxes. But tucked inside vague language in the bill could be conditions around architecture and density that would have a far more vast day-to-day impact on the lives of Americans, the majority of whom choose to live in suburbs rather than cities.

During his campaign, Biden telegraphed that he was looking for a way to do away with single-family zoning in such a manner. His campaign’s housing plan said he would “Eliminate local and state housing regulations that perpetuate discrimination” with something like Sen. Booker’s HOME Act, which would withhold federal dollars from local governments who have “ordinances that ban apartment buildings from certain residential areas or set a minimum lot size for a single-family home.”

In March, the White House said it wants “an innovative new approach to eliminate state and local exclusionary zoning laws, which drive up the cost of construction and keep families from moving to neighborhoods with more opportunities for them and their kids.”

The infrastructure package comes with just the sort of federal dollars which would be tempting for many cash-strapped jurisdictions — even if an influx of poverty and crime associated with lower-end housing eventually offset that money.

Asking Americans to give up their “picket fences” and “American dream” is a radical and unpopular proposition, one that so far has attracted little attention. It would leave Democratic politicians in an extraordinarily tight spot since many suburbanites typically vote for Democrats but chose their neighborhoods specifically because they prefer a lot of space, and peace and quiet.

If the bill ultimately includes those provisions, it would prove Donald Trump’s warning last year fortuitous. The then-president said Biden wanted to “abolish suburbs” and “destroy your neighborhood and your American dream.”

So far, Democrats have played word games, denying that they want to “abolish the suburbs” or “ban single-family zoning” because people would still be permitted to build single-family houses. Single-family zoning refers to planning ordinances that earmark some parts of towns as quiet neighborhoods reserved exclusively for low-slung, standalone houses. Other parts of the town, meanwhile, are set aside for house industrial uses, offices, and high-rise dwellings.

But because the value of land rests in the potential for how much can be built there, buying a lot for a single-family house in a desirable location could become unaffordable because the family would be bidding against developers who could put up a townhouse complex or high-rise on the same lot.

Meanwhile, people who bought in suburban neighborhoods for the natural views and seclusion could soon find themselves looking out their windows at a crowded parking lot.

The changes pushed by Biden would also target one of the most basic aspects of local zoning: minimum lot sizes that provide different aesthetics of neighborhoods for different preferences. Even among single-family-house-only zones, towns often have some areas with walkable neighborhoods of closely-built homes, along with other areas where every house is on multiple acres, providing a wooded feel. The change could press towns to allow any lot to be subdivided in order to fit as many single-family houses as could fit on it.

Ironically, Democrats justify increased density in part with environmental arguments, even though the result could be simply deforesting large lots for many cookie-cutter McMansions. That is perhaps a more likely result than apartments everywhere since Americans’ revealed preferences show that many don’t actually want to live in city-style areas.

Determining the physical feel of a town is one of the most basic functions of local government, and architectural and population density is one of the main things that give towns their unique “feels.” That makes the idea of the federal government influencing local zoning a dramatic encroachment on local control.

In 2019, Virginia state lawmakers rejected a bill pushed by a far-left lawmaker that would have had similar results. “Authority over land use and zoning must be reserved for local governments,” Democratic state Sen. Barbara Favola said at the time. “It is not appropriate for the state government to override single-family zoning decisions.”

But the infrastructure bill could give Democrats a loophole: they aren’t forcing local governments to do something — they’re just saying that they’ll miss out on millions of dollars if they don’t do it. The drinking age was raised to 21 in a similar manner: federal law didn’t require it, but states would lose out on highway funding if they did not comply.

Every state complied.

[COMMENT: There are some limiting factors they may be ignoring such as the local sewage and water capacity must be sized to planned development. ]


TB Fanatic

Democrats infrastructure plan would erase American suburban 'way of life,’ former NY official says

The administration's original $2.3 trillion infrastructure package "intended to literally eliminate local zoning, single-family zoning," said the former N.Y. Lt. Gov.

By Natalia Mittelstadt
Updated: June 27, 2021 - 11:24am

The largest item in President Biden's originally proposed $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill "is intended to literally eliminate local zoning, single-family zoning," former N.Y. Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey told the John Solomon Reports podcast.

"[P]eople spend a lifetime dreaming that they're going to have a home with a plot of lawn around it," said McCaughey. "They can let their kids play on the lawn, go out and mow the lawn, it's a way of life. And the Biden administration wants to eliminate that. Their message is, 'You can't have that unless everybody can have that.'

"So unless you have multifamily units, you know, some sort of apartment building, on the same street in the same neighborhood — it's not the same town because all towns now have areas for apartment dwellers, you know. But no, that's not good enough for them. They want to put bus lines on all the little streets, and that's going to change the way of life."

The Democrats are "trying to make it a racial issue, but people of all ethnicities dream of having a single-family home," McCaughey said. "That's not a white thing, that's a way of life — it's an American way of life.

"People want to have that privacy, they want to have their kids have independence, and be able to play in the backyard and not be supervised in a public playground. You know, all of us who raise children think that that's a good thing to have. And they want to eliminate it."

The Biden administration negotiated a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure framework on Thursday, which does not include affordable housing, according to Business Insider.

However, afterward, Biden said that the rest of the original infrastructure plan will go through as a budget reconciliation bill in addition to the bipartisan version.

Upon learning this, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Biden can "forget" the bipartisan bill. "Most Republicans could not have known that," he said. "There's no way. You look like a f–ing idiot now."


TB Fanatic

U.S. firms aiding and abetting China's 'malign' push for world dominance, lawmakers say

China has set a goal of global domination by 2049, coercing U.S. firms to give up technology, intellectual property and capital, Republicans on House Intelligence Committee say.

By John Solomon
Updated: June 27, 2021 - 12:55pm

3:19 min

China is waging a "malign" campaign for global domination by 2049, coaxing or coercing U.S. firms to give up technology and intellectual property, usurping U.S. capital to build its companies and supplanting critical American supply chains, House Intelligence Committee Republicans warned Sunday in a memo outlining the stark challenges between Washington and Beijing.

The lawmakers led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the panel's ranking Republican, announced they had begun an investigation into China's intentions on U.S. soil and the vulnerabilities they create and identified several preliminary conclusions from the evidence gathered so far.

"China is executing a plan to undermine and co-opt U.S. business," Nunes told Just the News. "Corporate America needs to understand that China is targeting them, often using lucrative access to Chinese markets as a means to acquire their technology and innovations, and even to force them to suppress their own employees' freedom of speech on China issues."

The most stark warning in the memo is that U.S. companies and financiers are aiding and abetting China's push — wittingly and unwittingly — to replace the United States as the premier global power.

"The Chinese government's grip on business is a powerful platform for malign influence," the memo stated.

"U.S. businesses are being manipulated and/or coerced into sharing key technologies with China and helping Beijing acquire sensitive intellectual property, which benefits China-based firms at the expense of U.S. industry," it added.

You can read the full memo here:


The lawmakers wrote that U.S. firms have been "receiving guidance and direction from Chinese officials to influence business operations, investment strategy, and strategic directions," and American executives in some cases "have halted or changed business initiatives and strategy due to concerns of Chinese opposition, resulting in self-censorship."

The memo also accused pro-China firms in America of acting as de facto lobbyists for the communist regime.

"The CCP influences U.S. industry and financial leaders to pressure local, state, and federal executives and legislatures to take actions that benefit Beijing," it warned.

The memo's release emerges a year after the coronavirus pandemic exposed enormous gaps in the U.S. medical supply chain due to reliance on Chinese pharmaceuticals and supplies like masks and gowns.

The GOP lawmakers said China views such U.S. reliance on Beijing's products as a security advantage. "China has articulated its understanding that its position in the U.S. supply chain could be exploited to jeopardize U.S. national security," the memo written by ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes' team said.

The vulnerabilities, the lawmakers said, are "particularly critical in supply chains for key commercial products, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and rare earth minerals."

China also is exploiting American capital markets to fund its strategy, overtly using "American investment managers and banks to gain opportunities for strategic investments in U.S. startups, innovative technologies, biosciences, and manufacturing" and sometimes hiding ties to the communist regimes.

"Chinese firms use complex structures that obscure risks, state ties, and other corporate details, hindering U.S. government oversight and U.S. investors' legal recourse in the event of fraud," the memo warned.


TB Fanatic

House Intelligence Committee Republicans Find China’s Malign Influence in Corporate America
(L-R) US Vice President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US Secretary of State John Kerry make a toast during a State Luncheon for China hosted by Kerry on September 25, 2015 at the Department of State in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/PAUL J. RICHARDS (Photo credit should read PAUL …
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP via Getty Images
KRISTINA WONG27 Jun 20211,887

A Republican House Intelligence Committee investigation has found China’s malign influence deepening across corporate America, including in the pharmaceutical, manufacturing, agriculture, entertainment, media, finance, sports, and technology sectors, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed Sunday.

The investigation is still ongoing, but Nunes — who announced the investigation on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo — said it has reached some preliminary conclusions.

The investigation has determined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — via its control over Chinese business firms — is manipulating and coercing U.S. businesses into sharing key technologies with China and helping Beijing acquire sensitive intellectual property, which benefits China-based firms at the expense of U.S. industry.

It has also found Chinese officials are giving guidance and direction to U.S. businesses to influence their business operations, investment strategy, and strategic directions to the benefit of China.

And it found China employs a wide range of initiatives to influence and shape events and public opinion to undermine U.S. national and economic security.
“American business writ large is entangled in this effort, wittingly and unwittingly,” according to a background paper on the investigation obtained by Breitbart News.

The CCP under President Xi Jinping has made no secret that it wants China to become the world’s dominant economic and military power by 2049.

In order to do that, the CCP has embarked on ambitious plans to acquire certain technologies key to that plan. For example, its Made in China 2025 plan outlines its goals to dominate certain critical technologies by 2025, and its current five-year plan focuses on scientific technological innovation and making advancements in the health, education, and financial services sectors.

The GOP-led investigation found CCP members serving as board members and senior executives in U.S. firms are advancing China’s goals to acquire technology and penetrate U.S. markets, and are prompting U.S. business to alter initiatives and strategies due to concerns of Chinese opposition.

It found China is using investment in American financial services to achieve their goals as well, particularly using American investment managers and banks to gain opportunities for strategic investments in U.S. startups, innovative technologies, biosciences, and manufacturing.

China is also using their influence on U.S. businesses to shape perceptions of China and to influence U.S. government decisions at the local, state, and federal executive and legislative levels to benefit Beijing, the investigation found.
For example, China will threaten to cancel contracts with U.S. firms and block access to Chinese markets to suppress negative comments about China by employees or executives. China will similarly threaten media organizations and entertainment firms to shape portrayal of China, the investigation found.

The investigation also highlighted China’s role in the U.S. supply chain for in key commercial products, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and rare earth minerals.
That role creates vulnerabilities in the overall U.S. supply chain and gives Beijing leverage over U.S. national security, the investigation found, which could be influence American decision making in a potential conflict.

The investigation is one of multiple efforts Republicans in the House and Senate have undertaken to confront the issue of Chinese efforts to undermine America.