Don’t Dismiss the Possibility of Gold Confiscation

   Even a cursory understanding of finance will lead to the obvious conclusion that "we have a problem". Unfortunately, there is no Houston to call. The financial system as we've known it for the last 70 years is broke and about to crash.  

  If you agree with this axiom, then like many people you have probably invested in gold, the "barbaric relic". It sounds like a good idea but is it wise? 

  This article argues that gold WILL be confiscated. The scenarios discussed below are to my opinion without much importance. I agree with the basics: Gold will be confiscated!

Guest Post by Jeff Thomas on the Burning Platform

If you hold precious metals in your portfolio, there is a good chance you fear hyperinflation and the crash of fiat currencies.

You probably distrust governments in general and believe they are self-serving and have no interest in your economic well-being. It is likely that your holdings in gold are your lifeline – your hope to get you through these times while holding on to your wealth.

But have you ever given any thought to the possibility of having this lifeline confiscated by the authorities?

In my conversations with friends and associates, I have often raised this question. The typical responses:

“They’d never do that.”

“I’ll deal with that if and when it happens.”

“I just wouldn’t give it to them.”

I consider these “wishful thinking” responses.

It’s an interesting thought that the greatest threat to gold and silver investment might not be the possibility of losing on the speculation, but the government taking it away from you. It’s a thought that I’ve found few want to even think about, let alone discuss.

If you fall into this camp, you’re in good company. Some of the forecasters whom I respect most highly also treat it either as unlikely or at best, “something we may need to look at in the future.” To date, in conversing with top advisors worldwide, the two primary reasons they believe gold will not be confiscated are:

1. “Confiscation would mean the government acknowledges the reality of the value of gold.”

Yes, this is quite so. They would be changing their official view… which, of course, they do all the time. But I submit that all that they need to do is put the proper spin on it.

2. “They would meet greater resistance than they did back in ’33.”

I expect that this is also true, but that a plan will be put in place to deal with that resistance.

We’ll address both of these assertions in more detail shortly, but first, a bit of history.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt came into office and immediately created the Emergency Banking Act, which demanded that all those who held gold (other than personal jewelry) turn it in to approved banks. Holders were given less than a month to do this. The government then paid them $20.67 per ounce – the going rate at the time. Following confiscation, the government declared that the new value of gold was $35.00. In essence, they arbitrarily increased the value of their newly purchased asset by 69%. (This alone is reason enough to confiscate.)

Today, the US government is in much worse shape than it was in 1933, and it has much more to lose. The US dollar is the default currency of the world, but it’s on the ropes, which means the US economic power over the rest of the world is on the ropes.

I think that readers will agree that they will do anything to keep from losing this all-important power.

The US government has essentially run out of options. At some point, the fiat currencies of the First World will collapse, and some other form of payment will be necessary. Yes, the IMF is hoping to create a new default currency, but that, too, is to be a fiat currency. If any country were to produce a gold-backed currency in sufficient supply, that currency would likely become the desired currency worldwide. Fractional backing would be expected.

As most readers will know, the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and others see the opportunity and are building up their gold reserves quickly and substantially. If these countries were to agree to introduce a new gold-backed currency, there can be little doubt that they would succeed in changing the balance of world trade.

That said, the US government is watching these countries just as we are, and they are aware of the threat of gold to them.

The US government ostensibly has approximately 8,200 tonnes of gold in Fort Knox, although this may well be partially or completely missing. Additionally, it ostensibly holds a further 5,000 tonnes of gold in the cellar of the New York Federal Reserve building. Again, there is no certainty that it is there. In general, the authorities don’t seem to like independent audits.

In fact, there are rumors that the above vaults are nearly or completely empty and that the above quoted figures exist only on paper rather than in physical form. While there is no way to know this for sure, it’s not out of the question.

Either way, if the US and the EU could come up with a large volume of gold quickly, they could issue a gold-backed currency themselves. It’s a simple equation: The more gold they have = the more backed notes they can produce = the more power they continue to hold. By seizing upon the private supply of their citizens, they would increase their holdings substantially in short order.

Either that or they could just give up their dominance of world trade and power… What would you guess their choice would be?

It is entirely possible that the US government (and very likely the EU) has already made a decision to confiscate. They may have carefully laid out the plan and have set implementation to coincide with a specific gold price.

So how would this unfold? Let’s imagine a fairly extreme scenario and ask ourselves if it could be pulled off effectively:

• The evening news programs announce that the economic recovery is being hampered by wealthy private investors who, by hoarding gold, are skewing the value of the dollar and threatening the middle and poorer classes. The little man is being made to suffer while the rich get richer. A press campaign to equate gold ownership with greed ensues.

• The government announces the Second Emergency Banking Act, advising the public that “the first EBA was instituted by FDR to solve this same problem during the Great Depression. This act was instrumental in helping the little man ‘recover.’” (As the average man on the street doesn’t know his history nor how wrong this statement is, he’ll believe it. Besides, the announcement has a “feel-good” message, and that’s all that matters.)

• Possessors of gold, who make up a small minority of the population, would become pariahs. It won’t matter that the guy who owns two gold Maple Leafs is not exactly a greedy, rich man. No one will wish to be seen as resisting confiscation. Neither will they wish to go to prison for resisting, no matter how remote the possibility.

• The US pays for the gold in US dollars, which are rapidly headed south. Yes, the Fed will need to print more fiat dollars in order to pay them off, but this suits their purpose, as it inflates the dollar even more. Those who have turned in their gold will do whatever they can to unload the US dollars as quickly as possible and will need to find another investment at a time when there are very few trustworthy investments other than gold. The stock market would likely rise, showing the public how the gold confiscation program is “working.”

• One last scary possibility: The government demands that gold is turned in immediately and that settlement will occur following confiscation. After confiscation, it announces that, as there has been such a large number of cases of rich people ripping off the little man, processing them all could take months, possibly even a year or more. A further announcement states that some investors have made an unreasonable profit on the backs of the poor and that they should not be granted this profit. This profit must be returned to the people. (You can almost hear the cheers of the people.) Then it sets about making assessments. The bureaucrats find that most investors do not have formal, acceptable receipts for every coin in their possession. So if you paid $1,200 for a Krugerrand a couple of years ago, you get paid $1,200. If you bought it at $250 in 1999, you get paid $250. But if you have no receipt in an acceptable form, you get a “fair,” median payment, say, $500, regardless of when you bought it.

• Appeals: Each investor will be allowed up to one year to appeal the decision of the Treasury as to what is owed him. Of course, the investor knows that the dollar is sinking rapidly and that he would be wise to shut up and take what he is being offered.

Again, this hypothetical scenario is an extreme one. The reader is left to consider just how likely or unlikely this scenario is and what that would mean to his wealth.

But bear this in mind: If the above scenario were to take place soon, the average citizen would have mixed feelings. They would be glad that the “evil rich” had been taken down a peg, but they would worry about the idea of the government taking things by force, because they might be next. It would therefore be in the government’s interests to implement confiscation only after the coming panic sets in – after the next crash in the market, after it becomes plain to the average citizen that this really is a depression and he really is in big trouble. Then he will be only too glad to see the “greedy rich” go down, and he won’t care about the details.

As terrible as the thought is, it seems unlikely to me that the government will not confiscate gold, as they have little to lose and so much to gain.

Those who own gold would prefer to think that this cannot happen, but they have quite a lot riding on that hope and precious little evidence to support it.

It is entirely possible that this scenario will not take place, just as it is possible that confiscation will not take place. The purpose of this article is to spark some serious discussion – both for and against the possibility.

Arborist questions Maui WildFire and shares insights

   I do not know how long this video will stay on-line. (Probably long enough unless it gets some traction and gets deleted from YouTube.)

  This is pure conspiracy theory so let's forget about the answers, but the questions are still worth asking:

  What kind of fire can burn a house to ashes, crumbles concrete, melt metal but leaves nearby trees untouched?

  How comes eucalyptus leaves, full of combustible oils, survived unburned right in the middle of the conflagration? Likewise a building with a straw roof? 

  What are the odds of blue "things" surviving the fire while everything else, and we mean "everything" was burnt to the ground? (There is a great example of a row of cars completely burnt except for  a blue one right in the middle left untouched.)

  As a statistician, I deal with probabilities. Coincidences do happen. Likewise, correlation is not causation. Understood. But how far can you deviate from the norm (how many sigma) and still find nothing strange in the results? 

  I used to look at these kinds of events and explanations with a skeptic eye. Not anymore. I still do not buy all kind of protracted explanations but I now believe the questions are worth asking: What if?

 

 

Direct Government Censorship Of The Internet Is Here

  Like our economy going bankrupt, our freedom is going out the window, step by step and eventually it will be suddenly. Just like that, it will be gone. 

  We are the weak men of the fourth turning and most probably will do nothing about it. We forgot that freedom is not a right, it is something you earn the hard way.

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Censorship of the Internet has been getting worse for years, but we just crossed a threshold which is going to take things to a whole new level. 

On August 25th, a new law known as the “Digital Services Act” went into effect in the European Union.  Under this new law, European bureaucrats will be able to order big tech companies to censor any content that is considered to be “illegal”, “disinformation” or “hate speech”.  That includes content that is posted by users outside of the European Union, because someone that lives in the European Union might see it.  I wrote about this a few days ago, but I don’t think that people are really understanding the implications of this new law.  In the past, there have been times when governments have requested that big tech companies take down certain material, but now this new law will give government officials the power to force big tech companies to take down any content that they do not like. 

Any big tech companies that choose not to comply will be hit with extremely harsh penalties.

Of course mainstream news outlets such as the Washington Post are attempting to put a positive spin on this new law.  We are being told that it will “safeguard” us from “illegal content” and “disinformation”…

New rules meant to safeguard people from illegal content, targeted ads, unwanted algorithmic feeds and disinformation online are finally in force, thanks to new regulation in the European Union that took effect this month.

Doesn’t that sound wonderful?

When this new law was first approved, NPR admitted that it will enable European governments to “take down a wide range of content”…

Under the EU law, governments would be able to ask companies take down a wide range of content that would be deemed illegal, including material that promotes terrorism, child sexual abuse, hate speech and commercial scams.

In addition to “illegal content” and “hate speech”, the Digital Services Act also applies to “hoaxes” and any material that is considered to be “disinformation”.  The following comes from the official website of the European Commission…

At the same time, the DSA regulates very large online platforms’ and very large online search engines responsibilities when it comes to systemic issues such as disinformation, hoaxes and manipulation during pandemics, harms to vulnerable groups and other emerging societal harms.

These new content rules are so vague that they could apply to just about anything.

And that is precisely what they want.

From this point forward, if you post something that they do not like, they will have the power to have it taken down.

Even if you don’t live in the European Union, they can have your content taken down, because someone in the European Union might see it.

So who will be doing the censoring?

Well, it is being reported that “hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it”…

Under this Orwellian regime, a team of hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it. The firms themselves, faced with reputational risk and financial penalties, will have little choice other than to comply. This can be done in all manner of ways: simply by human moderators removing content, by shadow-banning problematic creators to reduce their reach, by demonetising certain content, and by tweaking algorithms to favour or disfavour certain topics. And though, legally speaking, the DSA only applies in the EU, once installed inside Big Tech firms, this vast content-regulation apparatus will surely affect users in the rest of the world, too.

In addition, the official website of the European Commission is telling us that big tech companies must “react with priority” to any content that has been reported by “trusted flaggers”…

A priority channel will be created for trusted flaggers – entities which have demonstrated particular expertise and competence – to report illegal content to which platforms will have to react with priority.

This means that far left organizations that have been set up to police content online will now be given extraordinary power to restrict speech on the Internet.

Needless to say, the Internet is never going to be the same after this.

Initially, this new law will apply to 19 very large online platforms…

The online platforms affected are Alibaba AliExpress, Amazon Store, Apple AppStore, Booking.com, Facebook, Google Play, Google Maps, Google Shopping, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, X (listed as Twitter), Wikipedia, YouTube, the European clothing retailer Zalando, Bing and Google Search.

If any of those large online platforms choose not to comply with the new law, the penalties could be extremely severe…

A firm that does not comply with the law could face a complete ban in Europe or fines running up to 6% of its global revenue.

Last month, X/Twitter said it was on track to generate $3bn (£2.4bn) in revenue. A fine of 6% would be the equivalent of £144m.

Once we get to February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will also apply to a vast multitude of smaller platforms.

At that point, it will be very difficult to escape the reach of this new law.

And just to make sure that they can keep a very close eye on things, the EU just established a brand new office in San Francisco on June 22nd…

European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton cut the ribbon to commemorate the official launch of the European Union’s San Francisco office on Thursday, June 22, alongside Lieutenant Governor of California Eleni Kounalakis, California State Senator Scott Wiener, and Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs Adrian Vazquez.

“I am very glad to be here today in Silicon Valley, a global centre for digital technology and innovation, to officially inaugurate the new European Union office in San Francisco,” Commissioner Breton said in his keynote address to an audience of business and technology sector leaders. “As like-minded partners who strive for reciprocity and common principles, all while respecting our respective democratic processes, our transatlantic ties are more relevant than ever in the area of technology.”

For many years, the Internet was one of the last bastions for free speech.

But now everything has changed.

From this point forward, far left European bureaucrats will get to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on our large online platforms.

Direct government censorship of the Internet is here, and that is going to make it much more difficult to share the truth with a world that desperately needs it.

These are such dark times, and they are getting darker with each passing day.

Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration

  There is no climate emergency. Never was any.

  There is no "consensus" among scientists. Also never was.

  What there is, is policy through fear: virus, climate, wars... 

  Now about "Climate Change"...Yes, sure, that's what it does. It is an oxymoron. 

  Temperatures are currently on a slow upward trend and have been over the last 300 years since the little ice age of the 17th Century. It may go on another 200 years until we reach another optimum and grape once again grows in Scotland. Then it will reverse while staying in a relatively warm patch of the current glacial age. These are all waves or trends at different time scales which are far, far beyond our control.

  Now a slowdown of the destruction of tropical and rain forests, pollution of the oceans with plastics and fertilizers, less consumption and more recycling, more respect generally for our natural environment would all be very positive and contribute greatly to a prosperous future.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth, contrary to the popular alarmist narrative.

“There is no climate emergency,” the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August. “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.

The coalition pointed out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.

"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said.

Warming is happening “far slower” than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools,” the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.” For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is “not a pollutant.”

Carbon dioxide is “essential” to all life on earth and is “favorable” for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.

CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is “no statistical evidence” to support these claims.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are,” it said.

“To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?”

Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection

Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates—physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American.

Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.

Current climate models vastly underestimate this aspect of cumulus cloud reflection, which plays a key role in regulating the earth’s temperature. Mr. Clauser previously told President Joe Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies.

In May, Mr. Clauser was elected to the board of directors at the CO2 Coalition, a group focusing on the beneficial contributions of carbon dioxide in the environment.

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people,” Mr. Clauser said in a May 5 statement.

“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills.”

“It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis.”

False Doomsday Predictions, a Presidential Issue

CLINTEL’s declaration against the climate change narrative counters propaganda spread by climate alarmists who have long predicted doomsday scenarios triggered by global warming—none of which have ever come true.

In 1970, some climate scientists predicted that the earth would move into a new ice age by the 21st century. Pollution expert James Lodge predicted that “air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the new century,” according to The Boston Globe.

In May 1982, Mostafa Tolba, then-executive director of the United Nations environmental program, said that if the world did not change course, it would face an “environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust” by 2000.

In June 2008, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, said that within five to 10 years, the Arctic would have no ice left in the summer.

As climate alarmists continue to spread propaganda about global warming, the topic has become an issue in the 2024 presidential race, with multiple candidates openly dismissing it.

In a July 13 post on X, Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that climate change “is being used to control us through fear.”

“Freedom and free markets are a much better way to stop pollution. Polluters make themselves rich by making the public pay for the damage they do," he said.

During the first 2024 GOP presidential debate, candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called climate change a “hoax.”

“The reality is, the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy. And so the reality is, more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change,” he said.

High Temperatures, Biden’s Appliance Crackdown

Climate activists have insisted that global warming is responsible for the soaring temperatures across the United States, even claiming that temperatures are hitting record highs.

In a recent interview with The Epoch Times, John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, dismissed the narrative of record high temperatures.

“Regionally, the West has seen its largest number of hot summer records in the past 100 years, but the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest are experiencing their fewest,” he said.

“For the conterminous U.S. as a whole, the last 10 years have produced only an average number of records. The 1930s are still champs.”

Climate change policies have been used to justify sweeping lifestyle changes across the United States by the Energy Department, like restricting home appliances, and sometimes, even outright banning them.

In June, the Energy Department proposed rules that would require ceiling fans to become more energy efficient, a development that could lead to manufacturers having to shell out $86.6 million per year in “increased equipment costs.”

In February, the DOE proposed energy efficiency rules targeting gas stoves that would affect half of all new models of such stoves sold in the United States while making most of the existing ones noncompliant.

In July, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed a policy that would remove nearly all existing portable gas generators from the market.

The Biden administration has already implemented a ban on incandescent light bulbs, which came into effect on Aug. 1.

END GAME FOR THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

  We are fast approaching a 4th turning event. Nobody knows the shape and time: Global war, market crash, social disruption, all of the above? Who knows?

  What is certain is that the dominoes are all in place and sometimes soon they are going to come crashing down.

   The war in Ukraine is going badly for the West and NATO as the Ukrainian army is being annihilated. What will be their next move? Declare defeat and pack up? Unlikely. Global chaos which is already looming in Africa with the rejection of Western hegemony would become a tsunami.

  The everything bubble is growing wings. And why not? Financial authorities have the back of the mega gamblers. No deficit is big enough and fiat money is... well even more fiat if that is possible. Those who have access to credit will buy everything. The rest of the population will own nothing!

  And sure enough, 2030 is coming early except that it is not a stable society. The fact that fertility rates are now below 1 in most cities in Asia shows that living there has become unaffordable and likewise confidence in the future is approaching new lows. Let's not talk about American cities where it is not sure which of the people and infrastructure will crack first.  

  2024 will be an "interesting year" according to the Chinese definition of interesting. The only question left is when exactly does 2024 starts? It could be any day now!

Living through the late stages of an empire in decline, coming unhinged, flailing about in a death throes of debt, depravity and denial, is not a pleasant experience. But, it is just the cycle of history playing out once again, with the name of the empire changed, different villains and fools, civil and international strife, and a debt default to end all debt defaults. As the chart below portrays, the existing social order, controlled and dominated by America since the beginning of the 20th Century, is rapidly hurtling towards its demise, to be swept away by a tsunami of debt default, social chaos, and global war. That’s how Fourth Turnings roll.

I know the ignorant masses choose the ostrich method of keeping their heads buried in the sand, but that will not save them from the consequences of actions taken and not taken over the last fifty years by the political and business leaders installed by wealthy globalist psychopaths bent on controlling the world and reaping the riches from their despicable efforts.

I believe Ray Dalio‘s chart of the changing world order is accurate as to where we stand in the cycle, even though he is one of those global elitists. The beginning of the decline can be pegged to the start of the 21st Century, with the dot.com crash and 9/11 ushering in an astronomical increase in debt, money printing, and despotism, as each crisis created by debt and money printing was met with the “solution” of more debt and money printing. With interest on the national debt about to surpass $1 trillion per year and unfunded future debt obligations exceeding $200 trillion, there is no way out. The American economic system will implode in a matter of a few years.

The internal conflict since the election of Trump in 2016 and the subsequent coup, election fraud, scamdemic, and now unwarranted un-Constitutional persecution of Trump, leaves the country on the brink of civil war. I know the regime media and distracted masses scoff at the possibility of civil war, but the same was true in 1859. There are a lot of rightfully angry people in this country with a seething rage for those who have destroyed this country for their own gain. The 2024 election sure seems like a spark that could ignite this powder keg, and the 300 million weapons owned by the angry people are waiting to be put to proper use.

native advertising

I believe we are already in the midst of stages 16 – Loss of Reserve Currency and 17 – Weak Leadership. The American empire initiated war in the Ukraine has set in motion the demise of the USD as the reserve currency of the world, ending its seventy seven year reign as the one and only settlement currency for global trade. Biden, the weakest, dumbest, most corrupt, illegitimate president in the history of our country, has succeeded in pushing Russia, China, India, Brazil, and now the Middle East and South American oil producers towards an economic alliance which will accelerate the demise of the USD.

Biden, as the puppet of evil globalist forces, has encouraged an invasion of our southern border by barbarian hordes, has destroyed our economy, flouted the Constitution, and has set us on a path towards global conflict. He makes James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter look like Mount Rushmore candidates compared to his “accomplishments”. They were just ineffective and weak. He is corrupt, evil and destructive. 2024 would be the sixteenth year of this Fourth Turning, right in the wheelhouse of civil war, revolution, and global conflict. We have entered the endgame and now it’s just a matter of how much destruction, death, and retribution will be required to achieve a new world order better than what we have today. Not winning is not an option.

First the vaxxines, Now EVs!

  If you didn't like the vaccine, you won't like the EV either although the same techniques will be used to coerce you into buying one! 

  An ideologically tainted article from the Burning Platform. Still...

 “Hesitancy” About the Drugs that Weren’t Vaccines . . . and Now EVs

Guest Post by Eric Peters

When “hesitancy” about being voluntarily injected with the drugs that turned out to not be vaccines became a thing, it became another thing.

A pushed thing.

Things got to the point that people who refused to take the drugs being pushed were threatened with loss of employment (and with it, career, in the case of people in occupations such as airline pilots, doctors, nurses and so on).

Will it get to that point with EVs?

Right now – and for now – people are still free to opt-out of “electrification.” And the evidence accrues that many are doing exactly that as word about the adverse events people who’ve already bought into “electrification” are experiencing.

Such as the very public experience of Ford CEO Jim Farley, who tried mightily to make excuses for the EV’s failings that echo eerily of the way those pushing the drugs tried to make excuses for their failure to immunize the people who took them. Who assumed that’s what they’d be getting. Instead, many of them got myocarditis and other unpleasant things. But – never mind that, said the drug pushers. These drugs will reduce the severity of symptoms and that will reduce the number of hospitalizations and that, in turn, will help reduce the burden on hospitals.

One can almost hear the same cadences in the apologias emanating from Farley – whose company is on track to lose $4.5 billion (so far) pushing battery-powered vehicles that don’t go very far and require a lot of waiting (and planning to wait) in between.

At least they don’t kill you.

Well, not usually.

But they sure do kill any desire to own one of these things. Excepting, of course, the True Believers. Who – like the True Believers in “mask” wearing – cannot be swayed by facts. That is the nature of True Belief.

One must just believe.

But they are relatively few such. Or at least, probably not enough.

Just as “mask” wearing is not likely going to be accepted as easily again as anything other than what it has always been – i.e., a device meant to create an image of agreement with a sick narrative – so also the holy nimbus that once illumined the EV is fading.

They are being produced.

But they are not being sold.

Dealers aren’t placing new orders; they have too many in inventory already. Tesla is an exception, but only because it appeals – like the “mask” – to the true believers. But there are only so many of those left. Once they have their articles of faith, it will be difficult to persuade those who are not believers to buy in.

What then?

It will probably follow the script that was intended for us during the “pandemic.”

Like the drugs that weren’t vaccines, expect EVs to be pushed on those who are . . . “hesitant.” The pushing will take the form of pushing the “hesitant” out of their current vehicles – i.e., the ones that take them where they need and want to go without a planning (and waiting) ordeal that is analogous to what it was like back in the 1940s to fly anywhere farther than very close by. Across the country, say.

In case you forgot what that was like, it went something like this:

You boarded a prop job airplane in let us say New York, at what was then Idlewild Airport (JFK International, now). It took off – and landed in Washington, where you waited for the bird to fuel up before it took off en route to your next stop in Chicago. Where you waited (again) while they topped off the bird. After another stop or maybe two, you finally touched down in LA.

It only took all day to do what it takes about five hours to do today, in a fast jet. Which can  be likened to a not-electric car in that it doesn’t need to stop to travel very long distances. An EV, on the other hand, can be likened to going back to a prop job to fly across the country – when fast jets are available.

Farley publicized the fact, however inadvertently. Much the same as Fauci and the White Coats  – it sounds like a Synth band from the ’80s – did much to spread the truth about the drugs that weren’t vaccines, by brazenly and serially lying about them.

An interesting confluence is in the making. It is essentially the same one that reached its crescendo when the Thing that currently occupies the home of the president attempted to use the government to force people to take the drugs that weren’t vaccines. The Supreme Court ruled he could not do so but the far more powerful rebuttal was that of the people who had already refused to take the drugs being pushed and were not going to take them under any circumstances whatever.

The same is forming up as regards this pushing of EVs. There are millions of people who aren’t going to be pushed, under any circumstance whatever.

What will the Thing – and the Things in his service (or is it the other way around?) do when they run into such a wall of “hesitancy”?

We’ll soon find out.

The Western World Is About To Deliver Some Very Bad News To Its Young Adults

  After Michael Every, Benjamin Picton now! It looks like Rabobank enjoys splashing everybody with deep truths while launching stones in the pond.

 I do not agree with everything but still a great read. Enjoy!

 

By Benjamin Picton, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank (From Zero Hedge)

Here Be Dragons

I’ve been away on holiday for the last two weeks trying my best to pay more attention to my children than I do to the markets. Mission accomplished for the most part, but it has been hard to look away while momentous shifts seem to be occurring all around us. Indeed, at the Jackson Hole symposium over the weekend, ECB President Lagarde re-upped her comments from April by suggesting that “there are plausible scenarios where we could see a fundamental change in the nature of economic interactions”, “past regularities may no longer be a good guide for how the economy works” and “there is no pre-existing playbook for the situation we are facing.” Translation: “we really don’t know if rates are high enough or not, and that isn’t really the point anyway.”

So, according the second most senior central banker in the world we’re in uncharted waters, and as anyone who has ever taken an interest in the Age of Discovery will know, once you reach the edge of the known world, here be dragons.

The most obvious dragon is of course China, and its surrogates, which are making new attempts at formalizing challenger status to the G7 via the BRICS bloc. Michael Every notes:

The BRICS just expanded to allow in Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, so with much hullabaloo we can colour in more countries, GDPs and commodities (like oil) as 'anti-dollar'. However, Argentina is a serial defaulter with a plummeting currency, and may dollarize soon; Ethiopia is one of the world's poorest countries, and recently brushed with civil war; Egypt has a wilting currency; Saudi Arabia and the UAE have their currencies pegged to the US dollar, and the former is haggling over a US defence deal and nuclear tech; and Iran is heavily sanctioned, again with a collapsing currency, and could be daggers drawn again with Saudi at any time. In short, the world is changing, but as the FT has pointed out, the BRICS+ (a name created by Goldman Sachs) don't even have an official website. Meanwhile, it was the Euro, not the dollar, that saw its share of SWIFT transactions collapse to a record low in the latest data. You want to look at potential early victims of any global tectonic shifts? Look there.

This reads as a very ragtag group, with “relationships” built mainly around a common outsider status and no small dose of opportunism in seizing a perceived first-mover advantage in undermining dollar hegemony. We remain sceptical. As we’ve covered in this publication many times, the idea of commodity standard like some kind of petro-Yuan is laden with problems.

The auspices aren’t great for the new alternative multilateralism. The putative centre of the BRICS+ bloc, China, is struggling to revive its flagging growth engine while economic remedies that are taken as orthodox in the West are shunned for their perceived incompatibility with Xi Xinping thought. Markets have been waiting for months for signs of big-bang stimulus from the CCP or the PBOC, but as the WSJ reports, maybe it just ain’t coming. Chinese perceptions that Western consumerism is flabby, decadent and morally obtuse stands at odds with the need for China to fulfil the role of deficit-runner in order to get enough Yuan into the hands of the periphery. How can Argentina, Brazil, Iran and Egypt buy virtuous Chinese manufactures if they don’t have any Yuan? The answer here is that trade will continue to be conducted in dollars, one way or another.

China clearly has little appetite for further credit expansion either. The CCP has made several attempts over the years to rein-in debt levels, all of which have ultimately been abandoned in the face of a stalling economy. For the time being, Xi Xinping is resisting large-scale easing of credit conditions, urging “patience” while the economy passes through what policy-makers hope is a temporary soft patch, rather than the start of a Japan-style stagnation brought on by decades of malinvestment and speculative pump-priming of real estate assets.

The real question now is how strong the CCP and the PBOCs resolve to address burgeoning debt-levels will be in the face of economic slowdown. For an authoritarian regime whose legitimacy is built on the delivery of rapidly rising living standards, slow growth poses a potentially existential risk. The obvious retort here is that authoritarian states have no need to court popular opinion, but the speed at which the Covid-Zero policy was ultimately abandoned in the face of civil discontent should serve as an indication that the CCP is ultimately still sensitive to what the population thinks.

Looking back to Jackson Hole it’s fair to say that debt and popular discontent aren’t a uniquely Chinese problem. During the meeting of rich men north of Richmond (Jackson Hole is north of Richmond, I checked) a paper presented by Barry Eichengreen and Serkan Arslanap broke the bad news that “public debts will not decline significantly for the foreseeable future”, “primary surpluses of... 3 to 5 percent of GDP are very much exceptions to the rule” and that “inflation is not a sustainable route to reducing high public debts.” That all makes for sobering reading for already beleaguered millennials and Gen Z’s, who will be the can carriers for Eichengreen and Arslanap’s prognosis that “given ageing populations, governments will have to find additional finance for healthcare and pensions”.

What seems to be missing here is a dose of Huw Pill cod liver oil, whereby the West confronts the idea that we’re not as rich as we used to be, and that deteriorating demographics and higher spends on national security might necessitate a lowering of ambitions around what is possible in welfare economics. There are signs that the message is starting to get through. BOJ Governor Ueda nodded to the plight of the West when he suggested that the relocation of supply chains will result in lower productivity in the future, which ultimately means lower real incomes. Meanwhile, former French Ambassador to the United States Gerard Araud, echoes Michael Every’s assessment of Europe’s diminishing importance by writing in the UK Telegraph that “deluded Europe can’t see that it is finished.”

Nobody likes bad news, but telling young people that they need to pay a higher proportion of their stagnant incomes to fund the pensions of people who are wealthier than they are ever likely to be is sure to go down like a lead balloon, especially when pop culture is already communicating the sense that a Dollar doesn’t buy what it used to, and is taxed to the hilt.

So, the plates are shifting and policy makers in the West seem to be either totally unsure of the answers, or proffering answers that are anathema to the social fabric. We’re in uncharted territory and here be dragons.

Debunking the debunkers

   What's wrong with fact checking the news? Nothing in principle until you check more specifically what the debunkers do and how they do it and suddenly it all sounds like support for a major conspiracy theory: Someone is trying to hijack the narative!

   It all started in the early 2000s following the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York. Quite a few, in fact if you check carefully almost all the explanations of the authorities made little sense or were full of holes so people started to ask questions and mention "inconvenient truth" to mis-use a popular word of those days. Clearly something had to be done about what news were trending on the net or soon the governments would lose control of the narrative and lo, fact checkers were born. 

  Like censorship in Europe which first targeted neo-nazis and pedophiles, (Who can legitimately support these people?) they went easy at the beginning, targeting mostly politicians for exaggerated claims, missing context and distorting facts. Well, isn't it what politicians do? And so over the years under the radar, they trained. How do you prove a point even when it is flimsy? How do you establish authority or conversely destroy credibility?    

  But the point of all this was not philosophical but practical. You can debate for a long time what is the truth, especially in science where you almost never have all the facts but this leads nowhere and it certainly never was the goal. The goal as mentioned earlier was to establish guidelines to control the narrative on a new platform where new tools had to be built. And built they were.

  In many respect, the fact checkers were very similar to the Federal Reserve which is neither federal nor a reserve of anything and slowly built their authority by doing the right things and checking the right way. 

 So what is the right way of doing fact checking? Well going against the authorities is definitively a no go except for trivial matters to prove your neutrality. The UN, WHO, CDC and other alphabet soup of organizations are also almost god like in their statements. So much so that if infallibility could be declared, Vatican-like, it would already have been done. It can't but never mind, the fact checkers will act as if it was the case. As for information, once the "truth" has been set, almost instantly every time, no variation is allowed less it confuses the message. Although this doesn't work over time as 6 months later you can broadcast the opposite of what you just said without concern of contradiction. Social memory is short and fact checkers are there to check "other" people against your message. Not if what you say is consistent over time.  

  So that's about the mission, now about the method. Here, it's a little more complicated as you need techniques. Here's a good one which works well in science: Select the most absurd statement you can find like "The Earth is flat!" and conflate it with other statements you want to discredit like "The Earth turn around the Sun!" Now destroy the credibility of the flat-earth and "other" esoteric believers while saying as little as possible about any solid arguments they may have. And lo, the job is done. Who are you going to believe? The authorities or flat-earth believers? There are many other such techniques. The point here is not to describe all of them, just to explain what is going on.  

  Once the goals are set and the method is honed, you can slowly expend the scope of the fact checking which is exactly what we have seen over the years. From politics to science and from there later to whatever social discourse will need to be controlled. (Note that nobody is fact checking if you believe the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, or more, or less. That, nobody cares!)

  Fact checking works by discrediting and shaming the heretics. Most heretics are nuts or fanatics of one sort or another so mostly it works. But some heretics are more credible than others. They use facts which are difficult to refute and ask dangerous questions. These are the Luthers and Calvins of the World. More control is needed!

  The first line of defense is the Internet GAFA which were originally asked to censor their platforms and more recently are being coerced to do so by laws such as the recent one from the European Union. The heretics will have fewer places to hide. 

  The second line of defense are these new laws which are suppose to control speech in a broad way but is fact are so wide that they can be interpreted however the inquisition decides to do as explained by  CJ Hopkins in my previous article.

  And that is how fact checkers and debunkers have found their place in the ecosystem of intolerance and will play their role on the way to totalitarianism. 

  From a truth point of view, they are not necessarily always wrong (or right). But that's not the point. From their mission point of view, they are always right. They can't be wrong with the right message! And in the circular logic of people who are always right, the rest, anything else is by definition "wrong"! And that's how you deny the enlightenment and destroy science. We are almost there!

The Road To Totalitarianism: CJ Hopkins' Trial (& Sentencing) For 'Thoughtcrimes'

 

   There is no doubts in my mind that we are on a slippery slope towards  totalitarianism as explained below by CJ Hopkins. It started in earnest after 9/11 and has been accelerating since. Here's another example of how the law is distorted to punish and control people. 

   We are still officially living in democratic systems but in reality although we keep doing the rituals, the rules of the game have changed, or rather the people who control the game have learned how to game the system. Go figure! This is exactly what happened every single time in history and is the main reason why empires and civilizations fail. 

  Will ours follow that road? This is impossible to predict. There are too many factors in play but the odds are not in our favor.

Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

So, the Germans are putting me on trial for my thoughtcrimes, and, apparently, I’ve already been found guilty and sentenced. Bear with me and I’ll try to explain.

The Berlin District Court has issued a so-called “penalty order” or “order of punishment,” in which I am advised that I am now officially a criminal in Germany, for tweeting two Tweets. According to my attorney, a trial will now be scheduled, at which my attorney will argue the case before the judge that just issued the “order of punishment.” At this trial, the judge will listen attentively to the arguments my attorney has already made in writing, consider them carefully, and find me guilty, again. Then the judge will reaffirm the “order of punishment.”

Go ahead, read that paragraph again.

After my Kafkaesque trial has concluded, my attorney will file a series of appeals, which will fail, at which point I will have to decide whether to pay a fine of 3,600 Euros or go to German prison for 60 days.

This process will take months, if not years, and will cost me God knows how much money in attorney’s fees, court costs, and then the €3,600 fine. Yes, I’m going to pay the fine. I am not going to German prison for 60 days. Life is too short, and I am getting older, and it wouldn’t really accomplish anything except making a narcissistic spectacle of myself.

However, what will accomplish something (I don’t know how much, but something) is if I see the whole process through to the end, and shine as much light on it as I possibly can, because my case is just one of many such cases, and the real story here is not about me, it is about the crackdown on political dissent that is being carried out, not just here in Germany, but also in other countries all throughout the West.

There are not many outlets reporting this story, not outlets with any significant reach. If you are reading this column, you’re probably aware of various alternative media outlets that are, but most of these outlets are quarantined off where “normal” people never have to see them, and are delegitimized as “unreliable sources” and purveyors of “misinformation,” and so on.

There are a few bigger sources covering the story, which are also increasingly being branded “illegitimate,” Matt Taibbi’s Racket News, Michael Shellenberger’s Public, Glenn Greenwald’s Locals operations, and I’m sure I’m forgetting a few more, forgive me.

The point is, unless you’re a charter member of the “science-denying, conspiracy-theorizing, hate-speech-speaking, anti-vaxxing, misinforming left-or-right extremist” club — i.e., people who read weird “malinformationist” publications like The Grayzone, OffGuardian, ZeroHedge, Dissident Voice, and Unlimited Hangout, and who are planning to vote for Bobby Kennedy, or, God help them, Donald Trump — you probably have no idea what I mean when I refer to “the crackdown on dissent” … or you do, and you think it’s just hunky-dory.

I won’t mince words. The folks who think it’s hunky-dory are totalitarians. They’re fascists. They applaud the crackdown on dissent. They applaud the criminalization of dissent. They applaud the censorship of political speech, of any speech they do not agree with. They want their political opponents in prison. They want everyone who disagrees with them punished. They want people who offend them cancelled. They want anyone who refuses to conform to their official ideology erased.

I have been calling these people “totalitarians” and “fascists” for a number of years now. I do not enjoy doing that. I’m not doing it gratuitously. Some of these people were my friends. I’m doing that, calling these people “fascists,” and comparing the nascent totalitarianism that is erupting all throughout the West to other, earlier totalitarian systems, like Stalinism (sorry, Marxist friends), and, yes, to fucking Nazi Germany, because, despite the fact that there are numerous differences, a lot of it is textbook totalitarianism. Naked textbook totalitarianism. There isn’t another, nicer word for it … or for those who are enthusiastically embracing it.

I’m not going to present the evidence for that assertion again. I have done that ad nauseam, much of it in my latest book, which is banned by Amazon in several countries, and which bears a warning on other Amazon sites to “visit the WHO, the CDC,” or your local national health authority, “for the latest information on Covid-19 and vaccines” before you consider buying it, and the cover art of which is about to make me an official “hate criminal,” with a criminal record.

That’s right, as I explained at greater length in a previous column, the pretext for this so-called “hate crime” prosecution is two Tweets I tweeted almost exactly one year ago of the cover art of that very same book, which just happens to document the rollout of the “New Normal” (i.e., the new totalitarianism) in 2020 and 2021.

Here are the two Tweets that constitute my “hate crimes.”

The one on the left reads, “The masks are ideological-conformity symbols. That is all they are. That is all they have ever been. Stop acting like they have ever been anything else, or get used to wearing them.” The one on the right is a quote by Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health of Germany. It reads “The masks always send out a signal.” The image is the cover art of my book.

Say what you want about me and my writing. I can be “provocative,” and some of my political satire is bombastically over-the-top, but, as Matt Taibbi put it in a recent Racket News piece …

“No amount of drugs exist that if consumed would allow a rational person to conclude that the writing of C.J. Hopkins furthers ‘the aims of a former National Socialist Organization.’ Agree with him or not, and I increasingly do, he used his imagery to compare the sweeping declarations of emergency power that were common around the world during the pandemic (and were particularly authoritarian in Germany) to Nazi tactics.”

And that is what I am being accused of, and “punished” for doing, by the German authorities, i.e., “furthering the aims of a National Socialist Organization” … basically, promoting Nazism, for tweeting those two Tweets above.

There is no complex legal issue here. Yes, swastikas are banned in Germany if you’re a Nazi or promoting Nazism or Fascism, but they are permitted for the purposes of “civic education, countering anti-constitutional activities, art, science, research and education, coverage of historic and current events,” and similar purposes, according to German law. Do you seriously believe that the German hate-crime police and the prosecutor and the judge do not understand that? Of course they understand that. They’re not complete imbeciles. They know the charges are just a pretext. And they know we know the charges are just a pretext. They do not care. They do not have to. They don’t even have to pretend to be following the rule of law. Not anymore. Because they know the majority of the masses are with them.

The point of prosecutions like this (and much more serious and significant prosecutions, like that of Julian Assange, for example) is to send a message. The naked disregard for the rule of law, the blatant absurdity of the charges, the open contempt for democratic principles, is all part of the message. It’s not a message about the law. It’s a message about power. Who has it, and who doesn’t. And what happens to those who refuse to bow down to it.

The message is not intended for me, or for more important figures like Julian Assange, or the many other less well-known dissidents that are being made examples of currently. We’re just the medium that conveys the message. We’re the delivery service. The message is for you.

I’m pretty sure you’re getting the message. The question is … how are you going to respond?

I do not mean by “storming” your capitol. Please do not go out and get yourself shot. I mean, are you going to help shine a light on where we are headed? Because it’s pretty fucking dark. Folks are offering to send me money to help with my legal costs, and I’m extremely grateful, because I’m going to need it (and here’s how to do that), but what I think we need to do is a little harder, and costs more, and is much more important.

We need to talk to the totalitarians … yes, the ones who wanted to put us in camps. If we can’t get through to them, we’re probably screwed. And there is a window of opportunity to do that now. It’s not 2020 or 2021. The mass hysteria has worn off for a lot of people. I know, not all of them, but for some of them, a lot of them. Some of them are finally reachable.

Take a chance, talk to them, the ones you know, or used to know. Try to get through to them. Not the bug-eyed, fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth types who can’t wait for the return of the “emergency measures.” The other ones … you know the ones I mean. The ones who want out. You can see it in their eyes. Take a chance. Talk to these people. Totalitarianism, fascism, it is not an identity. It’s a mindset. No one is born a fascist. People can be deprogrammed. Some of them can. And, at this point, we need all the help we can get.

So, if you’re one of the kind and generous folks who have been asking what you can do to help and offering to send me money, sure, go ahead and send me the money — thank you, I’ve been overwhelmed by your messages, and I’m sorry that I can’t personally respond to all of them — but also consider what I’m suggesting, if you can possibly bring yourself to do it. If you can’t, I completely understand. Trust me, I am still just as angry as you are. I am hurt. I feel betrayed and abandoned. I have a feeling that some of you feel that way too. So I know what I’m asking when I ask you to talk to the New Normal totalitarians, the ones who might be reachable.

If you can’t yet, don’t. But if you’re able to, try.

Don’t try to convince them that you were right and they were wrong. Just shine a light on the road we’re on. Try to get them to recognize where we’re headed. Regardless of who was right and who was wrong about whatever, we are all going down this road together.

Personally, I’d rather not ride it all the way to the end and face what is down there this time.

A Story That Will Change Your Mind Forever - David Martin (Video 21')

   I just listened for the first time to Dr David Martin and I was blown away! This is stunning.

 Here's the speech of Dr Martin in front of the European Parliament.

 And sure enough, now cancelled by YouTube! 3 days after I post it!