It's Happening! (Video)

 It is sad but it is indeed happening: We are slowly leaving our "old" democratic world behind and turning to fascism in the meaning defined by Mussolini. “Fascism (which) should more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.”

 But worse! A world where public opinion is molded 1984-like by propaganda and where public discussion has been extinguished. 

Russel Brand is not easy to follow with his British accent, style and choreography but what he says is so deep and profoundly true that it is worth the effort.  

 

The Stagflation Trap Will Lead To Universal Basic Income And Food Rationing

The world will likely lack 10 to 15% of its food supply this Summer and consequently what is available will be twice as expensive as it was last year. This will be devastating in developing countries. But even in the West, inflation will be such that restructuring of the World Order and the social contract may become necessary. The ball is rolling: Brace for impact!

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

This past week during a conference discussing Biden’s “Build Back Better” scheme House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was confronted with questions on skyrocketing inflation. After referring to higher gas prices as the “Putin Tax”, she went on to offer perhaps the dumbest (or most insidious) denial on the causes of inflation that I have ever heard. She stated:

“When we’re having this discussion, it’s important to dispel some of those who say, well it’s the government spending. No, it isn’t. The government spending is doing the exact reverse, reducing the national debt. It is not inflationary.”

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and how central banks operate must have felt their brains explode when they heard this, I know I did. But before I get into the numerous reasons why this claim is completely false in every way, I want to give a warning – It’s very easy in this situation to assume that Pelosi and even Biden are making these arguments because they are too stupid to grasp the fundamentals of debt creation, money velocity and fiat. That said, never mistake evil for mere ignorance.

All higher level representatives of the White House are briefed by economic experts (spin doctors) well before they answer any questions on inflation, and the things they say have been carefully scripted. It’s possible Pelosi mixed her lies up a little bit, but the narrative the establishment is trying to promote is well planned. Asserting that money creation is a counterbalance to inflation instead of the cause is not brilliant, but it’s not designed to convince many people, only create confusion.

Let’s not forget that only last year these same people were telling the public that inflation was purely “transitory” and that there was nothing to worry about. Now they are trying to cover their tracks and the culpability of the Federal Reserve. I believe the goal here is to simply stall for time until the stagflationary collapse unfolds. They have the perfect scapegoat as they launch an economic war with Russia (and likely China in the near term), and the effects of this war will hurt the US and Europe far more than many realize.

To quickly break down Pelosi’s bizarre statement I will make a couple of root observations:

• First, paying down the national debt has NOTHING to do with reducing inflation. Even if you could somehow gather enough assets to pay off the national debt without creating new dollars from thin air the current inflationary problems would persist. There would still be the matter of the tens of trillions of dollars already fabricated and floating around the global economy. Inflation is directly related to money supply and money velocity. The national debt is secondary to the issue.

• Second, we need to ask the most obvious question: If government spending “reduces the national debt” by paying it down, then why hasn’t the national debt gone down?

The Fed and the US government created over $6 trillion in fiat money in 2020 alone, and the national debt only went higher. In fact, the explosion of the national debt correlates DIRECTLY to the amount of dollars created by the Fed to supply various stimulus policies and bailouts over the years. The national debt in 2008 at the onset of the credit crash was around $10 trillion. It took hundreds of years to reach that level. In the span of only 14 years of Fed money creation the debt has now TRIPLED to over $30 trillion.

I’ll say it again – Government spending and Fed stimulus has tripled the size of our national debt in less than 14 years. And, of course, inflation has spiked as the amount of dollars injected into the global system causes the buying power of our currency to decline dramatically. More fiat dollars equals less buying power. This is reality.

Also, using Russia as a scapegoat just doesn’t hold up on the logic meter. The assertion by Pelosi, Biden and many establishment leftists has been that blocking Russian oil to the US is leading to inflation in multiple sectors of the economy, but it’s “necessary” to stop Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. One might assume that we use a lot of Russian oil. We don’t.

Russian crude oil only makes up 3% of US imports. Therefore, there is no way that sanctions on Russian oil are the cause of rising prices, nor do these sanctions have any effect on the Kremlin. Inflation was hitting 40 year highs back in December of last year, well before the war in Ukraine. In fact, news on the Fed’s interest rate hikes moves oil markets far more than news on Ukraine.

To summarize, I have a special message for Nancy Pelosi: Please so us a favor and shut up, you blood sucking crone. The American people are smarter than you, and your propaganda script is full of holes.

Onward to more important issues…

This narrative is not only about protecting the Biden Administration, it is also about protecting the Federal Reserve. As former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan once openly admitted, the central bank answers to no one, and that includes government officials. Many theorize that it is actually the central banks and international banks that make the majority of policy decisions for government, and politicians have very little say in matters. I’m inclined to agree given the number of banking elites and globalist Council on Foreign Relations members that seem to permeate every single presidential cabinet (this includes Trump’s cabinet as much as Biden’s).

Biden is an empty shell of a man barely able to maintain a semblance of sanity, who do you think really runs the country?

I have been writing a lot lately about how establishment elites and globalists actually benefit greatly from a stagflationary crisis, as long as they are able to divert blame to other sources and are not targeted for retribution by the public. One of these benefits includes a cover event for an agenda that the World Economic Forum calls the “Great Reset,” which is essentially just another name for “New World Order.”

Isn’t it marvelous that the government and media hailstorm of covid fear porn that was bombarding Americans only a few months ago has now suddenly vanished? What happened? Well, the establishment was defeated, that’s what happened. With conservatives and moderates in red states in the US and in nations around the world fighting back against the lockdowns and vaccine passports the globalists must have realized the battle in the long run was lost. Suddenly all talk of passports and medical tyranny is gone.

I realize there are some people out there that give the globalists too much credit and still argue the covid scheme was some kind of success. These people are wrong. If you want to see what success looks like go to China, where hundreds of millions are still suffering from lockdowns today and no one can do anything without an up-to-date vaccine passport and QR code. In China the vax passports are also used for tracking of the population as well as an element of their social credit scores. This is what the globalists wanted for all nations including the US, and they didn’t get it. Therefore, it’s on to the next crisis.

The stagflation threat worries me more than any other for a number of reasons, and it’s not just because of the potential for extreme poverty. As we all know, the strategy of “order out of chaos” is about creating enough desperation within a target population that the people are willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for a semblance of safety and normalcy. But what specific controls would the establishment seek out?

Stagflation has the ability to trigger much higher prices in necessities, while it simultaneously drags GDP down along with wages, jobs, manufacturing, etc. There is also the very real threat of government price controls, which would suffocate production and reduce the supply of goods even further. We are not quite to this point yet, but the danger is approaching fast.

There are two initiatives within the WEF’s Great Reset agenda that parallel stagflation almost exactly and I predict we will be hearing about them often in the coming year.

The first initiative is the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI); we heard a lot about this a few years ago but the idea didn’t stick too well with the American public. The truth, however, is that we already had UBI for a time in the form of “covid stimulus checks.” This helicopter money was funded by over $6 trillion in central bank fiat created from nothing, and then directly injected into citizen accounts. It was barely enough for people to live on by itself, but in conjunction with other welfare programs and unemployment checks millions of people were living the easy life at home for well over a year. The money was so easy that the policy actually triggered a national labor shortage.

This small taste of UBI might have given people the wrong impression about such stimulus programs. After the covid programs the public might be led to believe that UBI would result in a carefree life with money to go around. By themselves without the benefit of other welfare programs, the covid checks would not have been enough to keep people housed and fed; the standard of living for the average person would have to fall dramatically for UBI to work at all. Enter stagflation…

With economic decline crushing our living standards it could be easier for the establishment to lure the public into UBI. Along with communist-style price controls across the board (and a reduced population due to starvation and poverty) the public would be able to survive, but barely. There would no longer be such a thing as “personal wealth,” only the scraps that governments and bankers are willing to throw people. On top of that, resistance to authoritarianism would be nearly impossible. Once the government takes on the role of mommy and daddy and the the only source of food and housing for the citizenry they are far less likely to stand against any abuse the establishment wants to dish out.

UBI is a candy coated trap which breeds dependency in a population. Free money is an addictive drug, and America just had a big taste during the pandemic.

This leads us into the second WEF Great Reset program, which is the concept of the “shared economy.” The globalists think that you should own nothing, have no privacy, and be happy about it. The initial danger here involves rationing. A government cannot institute UBI measures during a stagflationary crisis without also instituting price controls, because otherwise the fiat stimulus used to provide the UBI checks would only create MORE inflation in prices. If UBI is meant to offset inflation but it creates more inflation, then UBI becomes useless. This is another little fact that people like Pelosi will try to gloss over when they claim that money printing helps “fight inflation.”

When price controls are implemented manufacturing will implode further, because price controls mean producers of necessities will not be able to make much of a profit (or they will make no profit at all). There will be no incentive to produce among the people that actually know how to produce, and these people are not easy to replace. The supply of goods will not be able to meet demand.

Naturally, the government will take the opportunity to limit the amount of goods any single person or family is allowed to purchase or stockpile through rationing cards.

These kinds of measures have been used in the past, usually during wartime or under communist regimes. But in this case the rationing will be digital and permanent, and it will be designed to further control food and other resources as a means to prevent rebellion by the public. If you can’t store more than a week’s worth of necessities at any given time, then your ability to defy the government is nonexistent unless you know how to live off the land or have access to black markets. All they have to do is cut off your monthly UBI checks and ration account and watch you starve.

Referee Whistles May Be Cause Of Sudden Increase In Heart Problems: Experts

  It would be funny if it was a joke from the onion. It's not!

BY Capitalist Exploits

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini

Let’s go through insurers. This is important because it provides us with some means to understand a potential road map of how we’re likely to see all of this play out over the decade. It is going to sound outrageous and there may be some of you who call me a conspiracy theorist, anti-this, that or the other thing, but if you know me by now, you’d also know I don’t give a shit. Shocking, I know.

Masking it

They will try to mask it and have begun the neuro-linguistic programming associated with achieving this.

Heart disease…

This is easily solved. Ban whistles. Except that won’t work, because even the dullest amongst us will come to think to themselves two things. Firstly, where are all the dead footballers from all the whistle-blowing which we’ve had for… well, forever? Heaven forbid they ask themselves the obvious question. What’s changed?

Secondly, when reading “all incidents are non-vaccine related,” they may wonder to themselves, “Isn’t it normal to require a post mortem to be conducted to determine what exactly the cause or causes may have been? Very odd that a journalist can determine such things.” But here we know with absolute certainty that it’s not vaccine-related. No mention of anything other than the vaccine. The problem with this has been highlighted back in 2003 with that god-awful singer Barbra Streisand, now famously known as the Streisand effect.

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information, often via the Internet. It is named after American singer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project’s photograph of her residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew greater attention to the photograph in 2003.

By mentioning that this is NOT to do with the vaccine is a bit like the old joke. Close your eyes and whatever you do, don’t think about a pink elephant.

We all know of the deluge of professional football players in particular dropping with chest pains. Now they’re prepping us for more:

Prepare for cancers… and HIV

So let me get this straight. When folks were getting PCR tests for Covid and we found that the majority of these were false positives, this was completely ignored. Even after the factual evidence of it forced Portugal’s high court to rule that they were not to be used.

But now when getting “vaccinated” or should I just say injected with the experimental drug, folks are returning ridiculously high positive tests for HIV. Can’t have that now, can we?

For those of us who’ve been paying attention to this diabolical plan we remember the just deceased Luc Montagnier, who — after studying the contents of the Pfizer vaccine — warned us that it contained sequences from the HIV virus.

And now surprise, surprise.

Highly virulent HIV variant found circulating in Europe

So now we can start priming the sheep for their HIV vaccine. You knew it. Of course you did.

Moderna mRNA HIV vaccine: First patients vaccinated in clinical trial – CNN

The first participants have been vaccinated in a Phase 1 clinical trial of an experimental HIV vaccine that utilizes Moderna’s mRNA technology, the company announced last week.

The trial, titled IAVI G002, is being conducted in partnership with IAVI, a nonprofit scientific research organization.

Reading further…

The new trial, funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…

More on who funds them

New Plan To Speed AIDS Vaccine Development Released – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) unveiled a new global scientific strategy to accelerate AIDS vaccine development, and said it will begin work on the plan with existing resources and newly announced grants from the William H. Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the Government of the United Kingdom.

It’s becoming very clear that they are preparing a cover story for vaccine induced AIDS.

These headlines tell the story:

Australia ends COVID-19 vaccine trials due to HIV antibody positives | TheHealthSite.com

Moderna launches clinical trial for HIV mRNA vaccine like in Covid shot – Strange Sounds

Fast-spreading HIV variant doubles rate of immune system decline | | UN News

Highly virulent HIV variant found circulating in Europe

“TAKE THE TEST Brits urged to get HIV tests as heterosexual diagnoses higher for first time in a decade”

When looking up HIV, we find this:

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is a virus that attacks cells that help the body fight infection, making a person more vulnerable to other infections and diseases. It is spread by contact with certain bodily fluids of a person with HIV, most commonly during unprotected sex (sex without a condom or HIV medicine to prevent or treat HIV), or through sharing injection drug equipment.

If left untreated, HIV can lead to the disease AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). The human body can’t get rid of HIV and no effective HIV cure exists. So, once you have HIV, you have it for life.

Thank goodness we have Big Pharma who can provide us with drugs for life that’ll keep us alive.

I don’t know what the coming “HIV outbreak” will be blamed on. Breathing too heavily, eating meat, Joe Rogan, or Russian hackers? In a throw-shit-at-the-wall and see what sticks strategy, possibly all of the above. At this point really they’re likely to make up anything.

What implications?

If you are planning on getting life insurance, it may be best to get it now if you can lock in pricing for as long a period as possible. These wily buggers often have clauses, though which allow them to raise prices on you, so be sure to double-check the font size 6 on page 7,421.

I think prices across the board will go up. They’ll amortise it across the entire space. Part of the reason will simply be that the logistics of and potential legal issues surrounding obtaining proof of vaccination

Now the lawyers are in the C-Suite because the clinical data is showing fraud, hence the 75 years ploy by their partners in fraud the FDA. Pfizer’s lawyers are getting twitchy in their Q4 earnings release.

Pfizer’s lawyers are getting twitchy

We all know that lawyers love to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into these types of documents to cover themselves, however, it gives us an inkling into what is being discussed and worried about at high levels. It seems therefore, that between Q3 and Q4 the major worries for Pfizer’s lawyers include:
-further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection.
-challenges driven by misinformation, access, concerns about clinical data integrity and prescriber and pharmacy education.
-the possibility that COVID-19 will diminish in severity or prevalence, or disappear entirely.

I think we’ll get insurance companies vs pharmaceutical companies going to war in the courts. Narrative spin will no doubt continue, but all that’ll happen is that trust in any of these institutions is likely to be further eroded.

Advocacy Journalism is Propaganda by Dr Robert Malone

 It is hard to maintain a free country without a free press and what we have in the West nowadays is less and less "free"...

 Now imagine you have a good friend in North Korea who insists that the news in the Choson Shinmun are accurate. You read the paper and wonder: How can you tell your friend that it sounds like propaganda? Worse, would it do any good? To understand what it's like to live in the hermit kingdom, you should read "Murder in the Koryo". The story of of North Korean police officer who runs an investigation about the murder of a foreigner in Pyongyang. What is frightening and fascinating in the book is how ordinary the life of the North Koreans are. To paraphrase 6th Sense, "I see un-free people, but they don't know they aren't free!"

Guest Post by Dr. Robert Malone

 

Over the last two years, I have come to realize that “journalism” and “journalists” seem to have changed in some fundamental way. I used to believe that there were standards and bedrock ethics which all journalists working for major publications ascribed to. I guess I had thought that the stereotype of the intrepid journalist toiling away in a brave and unending quest for truth was the norm (think “All the President’s Men”). But no longer. Now I feel so naive for ever believing that. What I have personally experienced, again and again, is something very different.

Allow me three general examples to illustrate the point-

First example. Many years ago, when I was working for the “Aeras Global Tuberculosis Vaccine Foundation” (one of the early Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation non-profit vaccine companies), the CEO hired a media consulting firm which mainly consisted of a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and a marketing manager. To insure that favorable stories about the organization and its mission were printed, the “journalist” and the marketing specialist would consult with their clients (in this case “Aeras”), and learn what story the organization wanted to be told in a major print publication. An article pushing the story would then be crafted, all of the necessary background assembled to meet whatever editorial review standards were likely to be encountered, and this pre-baked work product would be fed to some “journalist” working for the targeted publication. Free work product, no labor required, what’s not to like? My first “you are not in Kansas any more” moment concerning modern journalism was when I saw this process used to “place” an article into “The Economist”, which I had naively believed operated as an independent arbiter of truth. Silly me.

The second example comes from having repeatedly been on the receiving end of “gotcha” journalism as it is currently practiced. “Journalists”, particularly many of the younger ones, seem to use a variety of ploys to draw out information that they can weaponize in some manner to support a pre-determined storyline that they wish to promote. Often it is a sort of confidence game, like a con artist might employ, where they flatter or use phrases like “I just want to help you to get your story out” to get the subject to let down their guard and agree to an interview. After establishing a relationship with the subject, they then draw out details using increasingly aggressive questions focused on supporting the true agenda. Often these personal details are woven into a story line designed to delegitimize someone or otherwise reveal some salacious character flaw. Then the article drops, and the naive subject suddenly finds that they have been duped into revealing personal details that have been weaponized to support a pre-determined narrative. Having experienced this myself a few times, I now often see this strategy (and various versions of this con) repeatedly play out with colleagues. As for me, lesson learned is to vet the “journalist” by reading prior work, and just say no when it becomes clear that they are a specialist in this type of strategy.

The third example comes from listening to disenchanted “old school” journalists (print and broadcast). These voices seem to be a mixture of mid-career and older practitioners, from “print” (an increasingly outdated term these days) and broadcast media. Again and again I hear various versions of the famous rant from the Oscar winning 1976 movie “Network”, where Peter Finch playing the part of “Howard Beale” says “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more”. But the words I repeatedly hear from these modern versions of Howard Beale are more nuanced, and revolve around being unwilling to comply with corporate demands to mislead the public in various ways. And all tell stories of widespread soul-destroying corporate media censorship and propaganda which they just cannot tolerate anymore. This ranges from small local outlets all the way to the top stars of major networks. Basically versions of my own story – they just could no longer tolerate the ethical erosion of their chosen profession. So they take an income hit and go independent. Some succeed, others not so much. And some seem to never be able to completely leave their old reality behind. “You can take the journalist out of the New York Times, but you can’t take the New York Times out of the journalist” is one saying describing the latter.

What changed? Is the present reality any different from what has always existed, going back to the “yellow journalism” days of William Randolph Hearst (continuing with the movie theme, see “Citizen Kane”)? Trying to make sense out of the world, I started asking the “old school” journalists that I encounter what they think about this. And what I have discovered is that there is yet another insidious form of attack on our educational system, driven by the corporate interests of large “non-governmental organizations” (including the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation) which have used grants to journalism schools as a way to drive changes in how their graduates have been trained. To be blunt, this is yet another story of the gradual erosion of integrity due to the pernicious influence of massive accumulations of wealth by a few who weaponize that wealth to advance both their own power and various social agendas.

Under the influence of large “grants” (I think they would more appropriately be called “strategic investments”), many journalism schools have taken to teaching “advocacy journalism.” Which is basically a fancy term for propaganda. Apparently news media now hire journalists specifically to report with skewed biases on topics of interest to these corporations (or governments), often with corporate sponsorship. Let that sink in for a moment. The advocacy journalists are often paid by an outside organization with an agenda. So let’s figure this out what exactly is going on, starting by defining terms. The definition of advocacy journalism from Merriam-Webster is:

“journalism that advocates a cause or expresses a viewpoint”

To me, that sounds like how one might define propaganda. So, am I wrong? The definition of “propaganda” (Merriam-Webster) is:

“the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”

“ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause”

Hmmm. Very interesting. The definitions for “advocacy journalism” and propaganda are essentially THE SAME. Well, THAT is a whole lot of double speak. It is truly a Brave New World. To quote the Amazon synopsis of that classic tome, “Aldous Huxley’s profoundly important classic of world literature, Brave New World is a searching vision of an unequal, technologically-advanced future where humans are genetically bred, socially indoctrinated, and pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively uphold an authoritarian ruling order–all at the cost of our freedom, full humanity, and perhaps also our souls.” Sound familiar?

Now, why is this important? Because increasingly journalism is taught by those who believe that “classic journalism” – which required that both sides of an issue be presented, (you know – “fair and balanced”), is outdated and deserves to die a quiet death.

This is exemplified by a Wiki definition of advocacy journalism that is frankly astounding.

“Classic tenets of journalism call for objectivity and neutrality. These are antiquated principles no longer universally observed…. We must absolutely not feel bound by them. If we are ever to create meaningful change, advocacy journalism will be the single most crucial element to enable the necessary organizing. It is therefore very important that we learn how to be successful advocacy journalists. For many, this will require a different way of identifying and pursuing goals.”

So, who teaches “advocacy journalism”, and who funds such teachings?

Well, for starters – let’s go to one of the premier journalism schools in the USA – Columbia University. How do they view “advocacy journalism”? At Columbia University, one of their programs proudly announces the following:

“CALLING FOR COALITIONS: BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN JOURNALISTS AND ADVOCATES

Journalism is being hit hard globally, and some even predict the end of independent journalism in the global south, especially in Africa. It’s time to look at what may survive. Philanthropic funding will become more essential, and donors will be eager to expand partnerships between journalism and advocacy groups. Through this project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Media Partnerships team explored the dynamics of such collaborations. Drawing from multiple case studies, the project provided recommendations for foundations, nonprofits and media organizations that maximize impact, respecting a shared covenant.”

Their partner in developing advocacy journalism training programs, with the expansion of such funding is… the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Unbelievable.

native advertising

But now there is a new “style” of journalism that has become quite the fad. This subset of advocacy journalism is called “solutions journalism”, and it is the term that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation like to use for their funding mechanisms to influence governments, citizens and leaders. Of course advocacy journalism is basically a “nicer, kinder” form of propaganda… Right? You know like when people call censorship – “cancel culture.” Because cancel culture sounds so much “nicer” than censorship… After all, what Twitter, Linked-in and You Tube are doing by banning people and content is for all “our” benefit, right?

Speaking plainly, what these modern media companies are doing is really a form of book burning. See Ray Bradbury’s masterpiece Fahrenheit 451 for further on that.

Large donors or sponsors are giving money to media corporations to bias reporting via “solutions journalism”. And clearly various governments are also influencing what is allowed to be discussed and in what ways. For further on that, see our prior substack concerning the “Overton Window”. These sponsors can be non-governmental organizations, or also governments or global non-govermental organizations such as the Zuckerberg-Chan initiative, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations, World Health Organization or World Economic Foundation. These groups seek out “private-public” partnerships (which, as previously noted, is basically another euphemism for what Benito Mussolini defined as Fascism). And they seek these relationships by using advocacy journalism – propaganda to sway public opinion. Sometimes they even fund specific investigations. When this happens, who is compromised? Clearly, Truth and Integrity are immediate casualties. All for the greater good of the greatest number of people, of course. As defined by the organization giving the money.

Conflict of Interest? Bill Gates Gave $319 Million to Major Media Outlets, Documents Reveal. The defender November, 2021.

“According to MintPress News, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated at least $319 million to fund media projects at hundreds of organizations including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic, raising questions about those news outlets’ ability to report objectively on Gates and his work.”

It is important to realize that biases and opinions have always been a part of journalism. Generally, we previously called these pieces “editorials”. When editorials are grouped together, they used to form the “opinion page.” An antiquated term, I know. Of course, we all know that some newspapers are “liberal” and some “republican.” Of course biases do creep into reporting and in fact, every newspaper’s reputation is built on those biases.

But this is different. This is allowing a non-profit governmental organization (at best), a corporation or government (at worst) to control the content of a newspaper or magazine through secret hand-shakes, grants and contracts. It is allowing psy-ops operations a front row seat into influencing the minds of the reader. This is a whole other ball-game, and it needs to stop or at the very least, be called out and recognized for what it is: corporate and state-sponsored propaganda.

Advocacy journalists can and are influenced by governmental policies. For instance, the NY Times recently described a new hire as “joining The New York Times as a technology reporter covering disinformation and all of its tentacles.” The pejorative use of the word “tentacles” pretty much shows what biases the new reporter is expected to have. The implication being that information not disseminated by the US government is disinformation, whether the topic be on climate change, diversity, elections, physician’s right to try or infectious disease. BTW: Any one else notice how the disinformation list keeps growing longer?

How does the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) or global information control fit into the campaign against “disinformation’? The TNI is basically a treaty management organization managed by the British Broadcasting Corporation which uses advocacy journalism to control content of news media through out the “free” world. Does this mean that only that “news” or PR spin which a government or world body wishes to be advanced can be allowed to be published or electronically distributed in some way? Advocacy journalism which promotes a certain viewpoint fits right in with the TNI model.

The long strange evolution of the TNI, from election interference to COVID-19 total information management shows the extent to which power corrupts, and that those being corrupted often have no idea that they are being corrupted. “Journalists” who are trained or coopted into buying into the idea that there is “one truth,” one right answer, and that governments are honest brokers in the assessment of that truth are not “fair and balanced”. They are naive and dangerous. Governments do lie, and what they offer as truth is often better termed mis- dis- and mal- information. Which is precisely why advocacy journalism (ergo propaganda) is dangerous. In a democracy, if an electorate is to be able to make appropriately informed choices, the news must be free from government (and corporate interest group) interference, reported from all angles, from all points of view – not just one narrow reading of the “truth”, as presented by big brother.

The problem is that this truly is a slippery slope. How does a newspaper or content provider determine what propaganda is “good” or “bad”? How is disinformation determined? Does the government get to decide? The “Trusted News Initiative” leadership? What about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are they to be the arbiters of truth?

Should a newspaper, magazine, or broadcaster try to make a determination about the impact on objectivity before accepting funds or making commitments to the government? Once upon a time (note the fairy tale prelude) most “established” legacy media tried to maintain a firewall between their “news” and “op-ed” operations. How antiquated that now seems. Does the organization being paid to present one point of view have an obligation to be transparent? To disclose conflicts of interest? Do they need to provide the public with the contract, the information on how they are being paid to bias the news they are reporting, their relationship with the TNI, etc.? What happens when the information control comes in the form of stopping certain types of mis- dis- or mal- information that the government doesn’t want reporters to write on? Or threatens to label those who communicate such as domestic terrorists? What happens when the sponsor wants the advocacy journalism to include marketing campaigns that basically target individuals viewed as opposition? Does the newspaper have an obligation to inform the public that they are being nudged? The ethical morass that this type of journalism creates is huge. All we can hope is that institutions teaching journalism begin to recognize the dangers of promoting advocacy or solutions journalism and return back to the classic tenets of journalism, those being objectivity and neutrality. And restore integrity to the discipline.

LATE BREAKING

And now, thanks to a FOIA request from BLAZE media, we know that the US Government has paid over a billion US dollars to the legacy media to promote advertising propaganda about the COVID vaccines as safe and effective.

In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a “comprehensive media campaign,” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.

 

Welcome to 21st century media warfare. Waged by our government on you.

The Biden administration engaged in a massive campaign to educate the public and promote vaccination as the best way to prevent serious illness or death from COVID-19.

Congress appropriated $1 billion in fiscal year 2021 for the secretary of health to spend on activities to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States.” Federal law authorizes HHS to act through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to award contracts to public and private entities to “carry out a national, evidence-based campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for the prevention and control of diseases, combat misinformation about vaccines, and disseminate scientific and evidence-based vaccine-related information, with the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages … to reduce and eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases.”

 

Morgan Stanley Lists Three Ways The World Will Respond As Sanctions Threaten The Dollar's Dominance

 More global financial market news. Clearly, this subject may quickly bloom as THE central focus of 2022, less the war expands beyond the Ukraine borders, famine becomes an issue this Summer or another black swan rises on the horizon. In any cases, 2022 will probably rank with 2001, 1989 and 1968... as a turning point in history. We just haven't named the crisis yet!

Last week, former NY Fed staffer Zoltan Pozsar sparked a shockwave across Wall Street when in his latest research piece, he suggested that as a result of the Ukraine war, which has resulted in a "commodity collateral" crisis (and which is quickly transforming into an old-school liquidity crisis), China's PBOC will soon emerge as a dominant central bank and as the commodity-backed yuan ascends to a position of power, the world's reserve currency, the dollar, would lose much of its global clout leading to even higher inflation across the western world:

This crisis is not like anything we have seen since President Nixon took the U.S. dollar off gold in 1971 – the end of the era of commodity-based money. When this crisis (and war) is over, the U.S. dollar should be much weaker and, on the flipside, the renminbi much stronger, backed by a basket of commodities. From the Bretton Woods era backed by gold bullion, to Bretton Woods II backed by inside money (Treasuries with un-hedgeable confiscation risks), to Bretton Woods III backed by outside money (gold bullion and other commodities). After this war is over, “money” will never be the same again... and Bitcoin (if it still exists then) will probably benefit from all this.

Of course, not everyone agreed with this radical view, with Rabobank's in-house geostrategist Michael Every among the most vocal critics of Pozsar's take. Over the weekend, another skeptic emerged, this time the global head of FX EM at Morgan Stanley, James Lord who in the bank's Sunday Start (available to pro subs) note asks "Have Sanctions Undermined the Dollar's Dominance?" and answers: no... but only for now, and warns that over the long run it is likely that Pozsar's dour view will be validated, as the act of sanctioning Russia and expelling it from the western financial system "likely calls into question the idea of a risk-free asset that underpins central bank FX reserves in general, and not just specifically for the dollar and US government-backed securities."

Assuming that there is a risk that all foreign authorities could potentially freeze the sovereign assets of another country - as has now happened - what are the implications? Lord sees at least three: i) Identifying the safest asset; ii) political alliances will be critical ("To put the dollar's dominance in the international financial system at serious risk, would-be challengers of the system would need to build strategic alliances with other large economies"), and iii) Onshoring foreign exchange assets (Pozsar's "outside money").

The Morgan Stanley strategist also notes that one way of doing this "is to buy physical gold and store it safely within the home jurisdiction."

The same could be said of other FX assets, as reserve managers will certainly have access to printed USD, EUR or CNY banknotes if they are stored in vaults at home, though there could be practical challenges in making large transactions in that scenario.

The other key beneficiary of Russia's shocking financial expulsion - as Zoltan correctly noted - is the yuan, as Lord explains:

... there will be reserve diversification, and we continue to believe that the share of the Chinese yuan in global FX reserves could reach 5-10% by 2030 at the expense of other reserve currencies. If some states are exploring alternative payment systems to SWIFT or looking to pursue greater bilateral trade in domestic currencies, the economic sanctions levied against Russia could act as an accelerant.

Yet while the countdown to the dollar's demise may have been indeed started, Morgan Stanley does not see anything actionable for a long time as "recent actions don’t undermine the dollar as the safest global reserve asset, and it is likely to remain the dominant global currency for the foreseeable future."

Read his full note below.

 

Ever since the US and its allies announced their intention to freeze the Central Bank of Russia’s foreign currency (FX) reserves, market practitioners have been quick to argue that this would likely accelerate a shift away from a US dollar-based international financial system. It is easy to understand why: Other central banks may now worry that their FX reserves are not as safe as they once thought and start to diversify away from the dollar.

Yet, despite frequent calls for the end of the dollar-based international financial system over the last couple of decades, the dollar remains overwhelmingly the world’s dominant reserve currency and pre-eminent safe-haven asset, with its advantage over others only slipping moderately over the last 20 years. Could the step of sanctioning the FX reserves of a central bank the size of Russia’s be a tipping point?

The willingness of the US authorities to freeze the supposedly liquid, safe and accessible deposits and securities of a foreign state certainly raises many questions for reserve managers, sovereign wealth funds and perhaps even some private investors. One is likely to be: Could my FX assets be frozen too?

We also need to remember that the US is not acting alone. Europe, Canada, the UK and Japan have joined in freezing the CBR’s reserve assets. So, an equally valid question is: Could any foreign authority potentially freeze my assets?

If the answer is 'yes', that likely calls into question the idea of a risk-free asset that underpins central bank FX reserves in general, and not just specifically for the dollar and US government-backed securities.

If there is a risk that all foreign authorities could potentially freeze the sovereign assets of another country, what are the implications? We see at least three.

• Identifying the safest asset: Reserve managers and sovereign wealth fund investors will need to take a view on where they can find the safest assets and not just safe assets, as the concept of the latter may have been seriously impaired. But the dollar and US government-backed securities may still be the safest assets, since the latest sanctions against the CBR involve a broad range of government authorities acting in concert.
• Political alliances could be key: These sanctions demonstrate that international relations between different states can play an important role in the safety of reserve assets. While the dollar might be a safe asset for strong allies of the US, its adversaries could see things differently. To put the dollar's dominance in the international financial system at serious risk, would-be challengers of the system would need to build strategic alliances with other large economies.
• Onshoring foreign exchange assets: Recent sanctions have crystallized the fact that there is a big difference between an FX deposit in a foreign bank account under the jurisdiction of a foreign government and an FX deposit that you physically own on your home ground. While both might be considered ‘cash’, they are not equivalent in accessibility or safety. So, another upshot might be that reserve managers bring foreign exchange assets onshore.

One way of doing this is to buy physical gold and store it safely within the home jurisdiction. The same could be said of other FX assets, as reserve managers will certainly have access to printed USD, EUR or CNY banknotes if they are stored in vaults at home, though there could be practical challenges in making large transactions in that scenario.

Reserve diversification still likely: Our long-standing view has been that there will be reserve diversification, and we continue to believe that the share of the Chinese yuan in global FX reserves could reach 5-10% by 2030 at the expense of other reserve currencies.

To the extent that SWIFT and reserve asset sanctions levied by other authorities around the world encourage some states to explore alternative payment systems such as China’s CIPS or pursue greater bilateral trade in domestic currencies, recent events are likely to act as an accelerator of a shift to a 'multipolar world.'

But it is not clear that recent actions have undermined the idea of USD as the safest global reserve asset and it may well remain the dominant global currency for some time to come, albeit at slightly lower levels than before.

Global "Great Famine" Is Coming By Eric Peters

Another good article from Zero Hedge, one of the very few regular non-propaganda media left in the West. For how long, I wonder?

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“Defending freedom is going to cost,” declared President Biden, announcing an import ban on Russian oil. And no doubt our Commander-in-Chief is right. Everything we do comes at a cost. The goal in peacetime, of course, is to engage in activities where the beneficial returns exceed the price of our inputs.

War is no such pursuit. Everyone loses. The victors simply suffer less than the vanquished. In Europe’s last major conflict, the Allies defeated Germany. Russia’s victory cost it 20-40 million lives and economic devastation, a cost indelibly etched into Russia’s psyche.

War forces us to determine what we are willing to pay for the things we most value. Afghanistan’s puppet regime was unwilling to pay a penny when attacked by the Taliban. Putin expected the Ukrainians to be similarly stingy. His gross miscalculation has raised costs of this conflict, drawing us all into Europe’s latest senseless war.

And so, the search has begun for what each nation is willing to pay. The costs will be wide ranging and have started with energy.

“Europe consumes about 500bln cubic meters of gas per year. Russia provides 40% of that. Europe consumes about 500mm tons of oil, and Russia supplies around 30% of it, that is 150mm tons, and 80mm tons of petrochemicals on top of that,” explained Putin’s deputy prime minister, threatening to halt European exports.

“It is obvious that foregoing Russian oil will have catastrophic consequences for the world market. The price surge will be unpredictable, up to $300 per barrel, or even more,” he added, sowing uncertainty, trying to frighten his adversaries.

“In this case European politicians should level with their citizens and consumers about what they will face, about how the cost of petrol, electricity and heating will skyrocket,” continued Putin’s deputy prime minister. “If you want to cut off supplies of energy resources from Russia, go ahead, we are ready for that. We know where we will reroute these volumes. The question is – who benefits? And what is the point?”

* * *

Golden Eras: “The coronavirus pandemic will mark the dividing line between the deflationary forces of the last 30-40yrs and the resurgent inflation of the next two decades,” said economist Charles Goodhart, author of The Great Demographic Reversal. He sees inflation in developed economies settling in at 3-4% by the end of 2022 and remaining elevated for years. The addition of hundreds of millions of inexpensive Chinese and Eastern European workers, together with Western baby boomers and women led to a doubling of the workforce supplying advanced economies from 1991-2018.

Golden Eras II: The working-age population is shrinking across developed economies (in China by 100mm in the next 15yrs). Businesses will manufacture and invest more locally, re-designing supply chains. Global savings fall as older people consume more than they produce -- spending particularly on healthcare. US manufacturing wages are less than 4x those in China (versus 26x when China joined the WTO in 2001). With global debt at record levels and asset prices elevated, Goodhart expects central bankers will struggle to tame inflation without causing a deep recession. “A golden era for central banking is ending, life will become a lot harder.”

Squiggles: “I posted the wage growth tracker yesterday without enough explanation,” wrote Lindsay Politi, One River’s Head of Inflation Strategies.

“I think the parallels to the early 1970s should be becoming very uncomfortable to policy makers,” continued Lindsay to our trading team on the One River internal market chat. “With the way core inflation is following headline higher with almost a perfect correlation and a lag is a relationship we haven’t seen since the 1970s and 80s,” she wrote.

Reap: Ukraine is the world’s 5th largest wheat exporter, accounting for 7% of global sales (in 2019). 71% of the nation is land is agricultural. It has 25% of the globe’s “black soil”,” which is amongst the most fertile. And still, in 1932, the nation suffered the Holodomor (Great Famine), as Stalin confiscated and collectivized farms. Today, and unsurprisingly, Ukraine announced a food export ban until the conflict ends. Russia is earth’s largest wheat exporter, accounting for 18% of global sales. So Russia and Ukraine account for 25% of global wheat sales. Prices are near record highs.

Sow: Russia’s Minister of Industry and Trade announced his nation is suspending fertilizer exports. The market is already in short supply, prices have surged. Russia is the globe’s largest fertilizer exporter, accounting for 18% of the potash market in 2017, 20% of ammonia exports and 15% of Urea. Putin said the fertilizer export ban is a move to ensure stable domestic food prices. He mentioned that fertilizer markets are deteriorating, making food a lot more expensive, and added that Russia has agreements with “friendly countries” on fertilizers.

Anecdote:

Everything is connected, one moment naturally following another. And so it is tempting to think that by retracing each step we can explain why we have arrived at a particular place. Perhaps this is sometimes true, over very short periods at least. But the world is infinitely complex, and the truth is that we often arrive at a destination for reasons we can’t possibly understand, let alone have predicted. That doesn’t stop us from trying. We spin compelling tales that appear so obviously true that we come to accept them as fact. In a Feb 15 video that is making the rounds [click here], Professor John Mearsheimer explains why the West and Russia are clashing in Ukraine, even as he failed to foresee an actual war.

Vladimir Putin’s Feb 25 public address [click here], that was a precursor to the invasion, presents his story of what led us here. Like all such tales, both are presented so as to appear logical, linear, evident, inevitable, and their authors might even believe they explain the path properly. If only it were so simple, we might stand a chance to avoid the collisions that litter history. Who knows, perhaps the issue is that we seek conflict for reasons we’ll never quite understand.

But at any rate, it appears Europe’s latest conflict was unlikely to have occurred were it not for the inflation that has taken hold across the globe. Russia, after all, has a small and failing economy. It is poorly positioned to exert outsized influence but for its ability to exacerbate global energy, food, and metal price inflation. This, in turn, can inflict horrible damage on Western economies during a time when their central banks have few tools to tame inflation other than to crash their economies. It can also divide the world between rich nations and the hungry/poor. And exactly why we got to such a fragile state is itself a story we may want to tell ourselves we understand, but we will never fully know.

Tensions Rise Between Ukraine & Israel After Zelensky Reportedly Told "Surrender"

 

 In the current Ukrainian fog of war, I found this news from Zero Hedge especially interesting. But for once, my comments come after this short article.

Tensions Rise Between Ukraine & Israel After Zelensky Reportedly Told "Surrender" - Article Source.

A bizarre diplomatic back and forth between Ukraine and Israel erupted this past week after a top aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky told the media that Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett urged Kiev to accept Putin's proposal for ending the war, effectively surrendering.

"Bennett is basically telling us to surrender and we have no intention of doing that," the unnamed senior Ukrainian official told Axios. In the wake of the report, the Israeli Prime Minister's office issued a vehement denial of the claim.

According to Axios, Zelensky and his advisors were angry over the alleged recommendation from Bennett, which may have led to leaking the exchange to the press. Kiev says that Bennett had initiated the Tuesday call wherein the advice was given.

Russia has demanded that to end the war, Ukraine must recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the statehood of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as write neutrality regarding NATO into its national constitution, or effectively 'demilitarize' itself vis-a-vis its relationship with the Western military alliance.

Israeli media also picked up on the story, with The Jerusalem Post describing:

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy that he recommends Ukraine take the offer made by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war - which includes many Ukrainian sacrifices - in a phone call on Tuesday, according to an official in Ukraine's government. According to the official, Zelenksy did not take Bennett's advice.

The source claimed that the phone call was initiated by Bennett. "If I were you, I would think about the lives of my people and take the offer," Bennett reportedly said. 

Zelenksy's response was short. "I hear you," he said.

PM Bennett has had increasing direct interaction between Putin and Zelensky since the invasion kicked off on Feb.24.

"Bennett told us to surrender," a Ukrainian official was cited as saying. "We have no intention of doing so. We know Putin's offer is only the beginning."

Axios filled in some further details based on the Ukrainian sources as follows:

• The government in Kyiv thinks Bennett has not been acting as a mediator, the senior Ukrainian official said. He added that a mediator needs to push for compromises, put proposals on the table and not simply pass messages.
• “We don’t need another mailbox, we have enough of those," the Ukrainian official said.
• The official added that Zelensky and his advisers believe that if Bennett wants to stay neutral and mediate, he needs to appoint an envoy that will work on this full time.

By Saturday, not only had Israel denied the report, but Ukraine's government itself is downplaying it, given there's likely concern that it could lead to unnecessary tensions between the two countries, also as Israel is increasingly looking like a possible mediator amid the war. But it remains the initial story was likely leaked for a reason.

Comments: So why is this article so interesting?

Because both bennett and Zelensky are right! And this by itself underlines the complexity of Ukraine.

Bennett is right because he analyses the war in light of the Palestinians fighting the overwhelming Israeli army: No snowball chance in hell! And sure enough, now that Putin has started the war, he cannot retreat less his regime falls. He will have to commit more and more resources to this war, which he can, until the Kiev current government falls. He was probably hoping that they would see it that way too and understanding their predicament, the Zelensky team would give up and offer him a quick victory. They didn't. He must now fall back to plan B.

But Zelensky is right too! He has gone too far to retreat at this stage. People around him would not accept that. Be they Nazi as Putin states or hard core nationalists, it doesn't matter. He would be dead. But then, what do you do when like him, you are cornered by a superior force? Well, Ukraine is complicated because it is a big country which cannot be occupied easily and certainly not without a very large army. Specialists say about 500.000 men. Putin simply does not have them. It would be too large a fraction of his army. 

The only option for Zelensky, is not to fold and fight to the bitter end, hoping somehow that at some stage, NATO will be sucked in and be obliged to come to his rescue. Yes, there is the risk of nuclear weapons. Putin said he would not hesitate. But by this he most certainly meant a few "tactical" strikes to scare off the enemy so it is a risk worth taking... for Zelensky. But not for Ukraine! The longer the war, the more ordinary Ukrainians will suffer and the longer the path to recovery. Ukraine was already one of the poorest country in Europe. It will now be much poorer still. 

The tragedy of this war is that it is a proxy war between EAST and WEST and that no one wants a quick solution. The West wants to weaken Russia. Ukraine is perfect for this: A fish too large to be swallowed in one gulp. But the EAST is not Russia and its perceive land vulnerabilities, it is China. 

China doesn't care much about Ukraine and this untimely war. Russia by now must be begging the Chinese to help. Reason why, in one way or another, we really are on the edge of world war III. But China has another longer term agenda to overthrow the mighty dollar and it is not ready yet. This is why both Ukraine and Russia are in a predicament as both of them can't pull in their sponsors into the fight. So the war will go on and the risks will rise.

If, as it seems obvious by now, there is no easy solution, the two countries will have to find an uneasy one that neither likes. For this reason alone, Russia will bleed and Ukraine will suffer. The humanitarian catastrophe will go from bad to worse and at the same time, the world will plunge in a recession first, and a deep depression soon after. Probably this Summer or at the latest early Autumn. Time then for China and India to offer a new Bretton Woods III multi-currency monetary arrangement?  

Quite possible. I will write about this subject in a few weeks when the outcome of the war becomes clearer.