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.

Von Greyerz: "The Dark Years Are Here"

 Our 50 years old bubble is on the verge of imploding. Russia will be the catalyst but not the cause. Whoever has seen the process in Argentina, Zimbabwe or... Russia, knows. It is not pretty, but not the end of the world either. Just the end of "a" world which happens to be the one in which we have been living during these last 75 years. Get ready!

Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,

A GLOBAL MONETARY & COMMODITY INFERNO OF NUCLEAR PROPORTIONS

When the sh-t hits the global fan, it often does it at the optimal time for the maximum amount of damage and with the worst kind of sh-t to soil the world.

For years I have been clear that the world is reaching the end of an economic, financial and monetary era which will affect mankind catastrophically for decades. 

The world will obviously blame Putin for the catastrophe which will hit every corner of our planet. But we must remember that neither Putin nor Covid is the reason for the economic cataclysm that we are now approaching. 

These events are catalysts which will have a major effect because they are hitting a gigantic debt bubble of a magnitude that has never been seen before in history. And it obviously takes very little to prick this epic bubble.

What is unequivocal is that all currencies will finish the 100+ year fall to ZERO in the next few years. It is also crystal clear that all the asset bubbles – stocks, bonds and property – will implode at the same time leading to a long and deep depression.

We had the warning in 2006-9 but central banks ignored it and just added new worthless debt to existing worthless debt to create worthless debt squared – an obvious recipe for disaster.

So as is often typical for the end of an economic era, the catalyst is totally unexpected and worse than anyone could have forecast.

WAR CYCLES

Yes, I and a few others have pointed out that we are in a war cycle currently, and recent events have clearly confirmed this and hit the world with a vengeance.

Just as nobody paid any serious attention to the warning that the Great Financial Crisis in 2006-9 gave the world, few people have taken Putin’s warnings seriously since the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine.

When sh-t happens at the end of an excessive bubble era, it will always be the worst kind. And what can be worse than a major war that could develop into a nuclear and world war.

Sadly, wars are part of history and there is virtually no period in history without a war. Wikipedia lists around 40 ongoing wars and conflicts currently with most of them being relatively small and local. The majority are in the Middle East and Africa.

Wars are horrible at any level and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine certainly qualifies as another grim conflict that potentially could have been avoided. In the US backed Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014, the Russian friendly Ukrainian President Yanukovych was pushed out. Since then, Putin has always made it clear that he could not accept being surrounded by a US and Western backed Ukraine as well as Nato members with missile systems pointing to Russia. The parallel with Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1962 is obvious.

Whether anyone listened to Putin’s demands or not, he made it very clear that he could never let Russia be cornered in this manner. If the US and the West had focused more on critical diplomacy for the sake of global peace, things could have been different. But instead, all Western world leaders found nebulous and uncontroversial areas to agree on such as Covid, climate change, wokeism, rewriting history and creating unlimited genders.

Leaders also deliberately ignored the fact that the world was going towards an inevitable economic debt and asset collapse. Much easier to rearrange the deck chairs than to deal with real and emphatically catastrophic issues.

So Putin is now the number one enemy of the Western world since starting a war is always unacceptable whoever starts it. Lindsey Graham, a US Republican senator just suggested that Putin should be taken out! But Boris Johnson fortunately disagreed but  suggested instead that Putin should be held to account at the International (Criminal) Court. 

Fair enough, war crimes are always crimes and should therefore be punished.

But what is interesting to observe is that when the US with Allies start unprovoked wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya or Syria with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims, destroying the fabric of these societies and also leading to anarchy, no one calls for the US president or UK prime minister to be held to account.

Obviously, the world has never been a level playing field.

THE FED CAN NEVER GET INFLATION RIGHT

Inflation leading to hyperinflation was always guaranteed in the current debt infested era, although the Fed and other Western central banks have never understood what inflation is. Just as they didn’t understand that their fake and manipulated inflation figures couldn’t even reach the Fed target of 2%. Now with real US inflation exceeding 15% (see graph below), the Fed has a new dilemma that they are totally unprepared for.

The US government conveniently changed the calculation of inflation to suit their purpose. Had they stuck to the 1980s established method, official inflation would be over 15% today and rising.

For years, the US Fed unsuccessfully tried, with all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, to get inflation up to 2%. In spite of throwing $ trillions at the problem and keeping interest rates at zero, they never understood why they failed.

In spite of printing unlimited amounts of counterfeit money, inflation for years stayed nearer 0% than 2%.

Now with official inflation at 7% and real at 15%, the Fed can’t understand what has hit them as we know from their laughable “transitory” language.

So now a quick volte face for the Fed to figure out how to reduce inflation by 5 percentage points and more likely by 13 to get inflation down to 2% instead of up to 2%.

Clearly the Fed can never get it right but many of us have known that for a very long time.

If the Fed studied and understood Austrian economics rather than defunct Keynesianism, they would know that the real inflation rate depends on growth in money supply rather than the obsolete consumer price model.

BASED ON THE GROWTH IN MONEY SUPPLY, US INFLATION IS NOW 19%

So let’s take a look at the growth in Money Supply. Since 1971, M2 has grown by 7% annually. A 7% growth means that prices double every 10 years. Thus 100% total inflation over 10 years rather than the 2% per annum that is the Fed target.

But as the chart above shows, the exponential phase started in March 2020 with M2 growing by 19% annually since then. That means a doubling of prices every 3.8 years.

Since money supply is growing at 19% annually, this means that inflation is also 19% based on our Austrian friends.

And this is what the US and the world was facing before the Ukraine crisis. But now there is a lot of explosive fuel being poured on the global inflation fire.

RUSSIA HAS THE BIGGEST GLOBAL NATURAL RESOURCE RESERVES

Russia has the biggest natural resource reserves in the world which include coal, natural gas, oil, gold, timber, rare earth metals etc. In Rubles these reserves will obviously appreciate substantially with the falling currency.

In total, the Russian natural resource reserves are estimated at $75 trillion. That is 66% higher than the second country USA and more than twice as much as Saudi Arabia and Canada.

Even if the total Russian supply is not lost to the world, it is clear that the West is determined to punish Russia to the furthest extent possible. Therefore, as we have already seen in the major escalation of oil and gas prices, the shortages will put insufferable pressure on the prices of natural resources.

The table below shows the countries in Europe that are dependent on Russian gas for more than 50% of their total consumption.

A COMMODITY BLACK SWAN IS COMING

The global market for grains, vegetable oil and fertilisers was already extremely tight before Russia’s attack.

What is happening now is a commodity black swan across both energy and agricultural resources.

The World Food Programme warned of a catastrophic scarcity for several hundred million people last November. What is happening now will make this exponentially worse.

“Everything is going up vertically. The whole production chain is under pressure from every side,” said UN’s ex-head of agricultural markets.

Energy and agricultural products are interlinked. Gas is feedstock for fertiliser production in Europe. Russia and Belarus together account for 1/3 of the world’s potash exports.

Around 33% of world exports of barley come from Russia and Ukraine together, 30% of wheat, 20% of maize and 80% of sunflower oil.

The consequences are unforeseeable.

Goldman Sachs Commodity Index is up 3X since April 2020. The exponential phase of  the move has just started.

UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation (FOA) are reporting a 43% increase in food price since 2020. And remember, this was before the real problems had started.

A GLOBAL MONETARY AND COMMODITY INFERNO

I have for quite a few years warned about the coming inflation, leading to hyperinflation, based on unlimited money printing.

But the dynamite of a global commodity crisis and shortages thrown into the already catastrophic debt and global monetary fire will create an inferno of nuclear proportions.

If a miracle doesn’t stop this war very quickly (which is extremely unlikely), the world will soon be entering a hyperinflationary commodity explosion (think both energy, metals and food) combined with a cataclysmic deflationary asset implosion (think debt, stocks and property).

The world will be experiencing totally unknown consequences without the ability to solve any of them for a very long time.

All the above would most likely happen even without a global war. But if the war spreads outside Russia and Ukraine, then all bets are off. At this point I am not going to speculate about such an outcome since what is standing in front of us currently certainly is bad enough.

IS THERE ANY GOOD NEWS?

So is there any good news? Well, first of all as I often repeat, family and a small group of friends and colleagues will be invaluable in the coming crisis.

And since a commodity inflation is guaranteed, it is obvious that physical gold and some silver will be a life saver against the coming bubble-asset destruction (stocks, bonds, property.

As I have said many times:

“GOLD AND SILVER WILL REACH UNTHINKABLE HEIGHTS!”

In a crisis of this magnitude, I would stay away from paper assets including ETFs of any kind. It is clearly imperative to have physical metals stored outside the financial system.

And remember not to measure your wealth or your gold in worthless paper money. Instead measure your gold and silver in ounces or grammes.

Just look at what happens to gold when the currency collapses. The chart below shows gold in Rubles since 2000. Gold is up 38X in the last 21 years. Just in the last 12 months, gold is up 89% in Rubles and the problems have just began.

Russia was the world’s second largest gold producer in 2020 with 331 tonnes after China with 368 tonnes.

These two countries have officially accumulated 3,400 tonnes of gold since 2000 giving them a total of 4,200t.

Some insiders estimate that China’s gold reserves could be as high as 20,000t and Russia’s also considerably higher than the 2,300t.

So while Russia and China have increased their combined gold holdings 5X since 2000 The US allegedly has held 8,000 since 1980. But since there has been no official physical audit of the US gold since 1953, few believe that they hold this amount of unencumbered gold.

Remember: “He who holds the gold makes the rules”

In 2009 I wrote an article called “The Dark Years Are Here”. I have republished parts of it a couple of times and the last time in 2020 with an article called “The Dark Years & The Forth Turning”

Sadly it now looks like the Dark Years are starting in earnest.

Except for protecting your assets against collapsing currencies, I repeat that the circle of family and friends and helping others will be absolutely critical.

Why You Should Question The West's 'Madman' Narrative

Putin may be a lot of things but "madman" is not one of them. Conversely, the derangement  syndrome seems to be acute in the West. It bodes ill for what's coming next.

Authored by Jonathan Cook via the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

How convenient for western leaders that every time another country defies the West’s projection of power, the western media can agree on one thing: that the foreign government in question is led by a madman, a psychopath or a megalomaniac.

At a drop of a hat, western leaders are absolved of guilt or even responsibility for the terrible events that unfold. The West remains virtuous, simply a victim of the world’s madmen. Nothing the West did was a provocation. Nothing they could have done would have averted the disaster.

The US may be the most powerful state on the planet by far, but its hands are apparently always tied by a deranged, implacable foe like Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Putin, we are told, is not advancing any rational – from his perspective – geopolitical or strategic interest by invading his neighbor, Ukraine. And so no concession could or should have been made because none would have prevented him from acting as he has.

The West, meaning foreign policy hawks in Washington, gets to decide when the timeline of events started, when the original sin occurred. The compliant western media give their blessing, and our hands are washed clean once again.

The subtext – always the subtext – is that something must be done to stop the “madman”. And because he is irrational and a megalomaniac, such action must never be framed in terms of concessions or compromise – that would be appeasement, after all. If every enemy is a new Hitler, no western leader will risk a comparison with Neville Chamberlain.

Instead, what is needed urgently, western politicians and media agree, is the projection – whether overtly or covertly – of yet more western power and force.

Unmitigated catastrophe

The US and British invasion of Iraq nearly two decades ago is a particularly pertinent and telling counterpoint to events in Ukraine.

Then, as now, the West was supposedly faced with a dangerous, irrational ruler who could not be made to see sense and was unwilling to compromise. Saddam Hussein, western leaders and their media insisted, had allied with his archenemies in al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the Twin Towers attack of 9/11. He had weapons of mass destruction, and could launch them towards Europe in 45 minutes.

Except, none of that was true – not even the madman bit. Saddam was a hard, cold, calculating dictator who, like most dictators, kept himself in power through a reign of terror over his opponents.

Nonetheless, the western media faithfully amplified the tissue of evidence-free claims – and patent lies like that preposterous alliance with al-Qaeda – concocted in Washington and London to usher in the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

United Nations inspectors could find no trace of stockpiles of Iraq’s former biological and chemical weapons arsenal. One, Scott Ritter, went unheard as he warned that any possessed by Saddam would have turned to “harmless goo” after many years of sanctions and inspections.

The improbable 45-minute claim, meanwhile, was not based on any kind of intelligence. It was lifted straight from a student’s speculations in a doctoral dissertation. Iraq’s invasion by the US and Britain was not only illegal, of course. It had horrifying consequences. It led to the likely deaths of around a million Iraqis, and spawned a terrifying new kind of nihilistic Islamism that destabilized much of the region.

Those interests, of course, were largely concealed because they were so ignoble, flagrantly violating the so-called “rules-based order” Washington claims to uphold. But despite being an unmitigated catastrophe, the US-led invasion of Iraq was no more “irrational” than Putin’s current invasion of Ukraine. Washington’s neoconservatives advanced what they regarded as US geopolitical interests and a strategic vision for the Middle East.

What the neoconservatives wanted was variously to control Iraq’s oil, to eliminate regional pockets of resistance to its own and its client Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East, and to expand the region as an economic market for US goods and weapons.

Saddam fell into the trap set for him because he was equally motivated by his own narrowly defined “rational” self-interest. He refused to admit he had no meaningful weapons systems left after the western sanctions and inspections regimes because he did not dare to look weak, either to his own population or to hostile neighbors like Iran.

The western media’s refusal to consider the real motivations on either side – the neoconservatives’ in Washington or Saddam’s in Iraq – made the 2003 invasion and the suffering that followed all the more inevitable.

Spheres of influence

The same predilection for the simple-minded “madman” narrative has once again pushed us squarely into another international crisis. And once again, it has served as a way to avoid examining the real background to, and reasons for, what is happening in Ukraine and wider eastern Europe.

Putin’s actions – though potentially no less disastrous than the US-led invasion of Iraq, and certainly as illegal – are also rooted in his own “rational” assessment of Russian geopolitical interests.

But unlike Washington’s reasons for invading Iraq, Putin’s grounds for threatening and now invading Ukraine were not concealed. He has been quite open and consistent about the rationale for years, even if western leaders ignored his speeches, and western media rarely cited anything more than his most tub-thumping, jingoistic soundbites.

Russia has realistic objections to the behavior and bad faith of the US and NATO over the past three decades. NATO, we should remind ourselves, is primarily a creature of the Cold War, a vehicle for the West to project an aggressive military posture towards the former Soviet Union under the cover of a “defense” organization.

But following the USSR’s dissolution in 1991, the western military alliance was not disbanded. Quite the reverse. It grew to absorb almost all of the former east European states that had belonged to the Soviet bloc and it made a new bogeyman of Russia. Western military budgets climbed year by year.

Russia expects a so-called “sphere of influence“, in the same way that the US demands one. What’s been going on instead for the best part of 30 years is that the US, as the world’s sole superpower, has expanded its own sphere of influence right up to Russia’s doorstep. Like Washington, Putin has the nuclear arsenal to back up his demands. To ignore either his claim for a sphere of influence or Russia’s ability to impose it by force if necessary is either hypocrisy or foolishness.

That too paved the path to the current invasion.

Cold war mentality

But Putin has other reasons – from his perspective – to act. He also wants to show the US that there is a price to be paid for Washington’s repeated broken promises on security arrangements in Europe. Russia dissolved its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, after the fall of the Soviet Union in a sign both of its weakness and its willingness to reorder its relations with its neighbors.

The US and the European Union had a chance to welcome Russia into the fold, and make it a partner in Europe’s security. Instead the Cold War mentality persisted even more in western capitals than in Moscow. The West’s military bureaucracies that need war, or at least the threat of it to justify their jobs and budgets, lobbied to keep Russia at arm’s length.

Meanwhile, eastern Europe became a large, and profitable, new market for western arms makers. That paved the path to this crisis too.

And finally, Putin has every incentive to deal more decisively with the eight-year festering wound of a civil war between anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalists and ethnic Russian fighters from the Donbas region, in Ukraine’s east. Even before the current invasion, many thousands had died.

Ukrainian nationalists want entry into NATO so it is sucked into the Donbas bloodbath on their side – fueling a war that could spiral out of control into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. Putin wants to show NATO and militant Ukrainians that will be no simple matter.

The invasion is intended as a shot across the bows to dissuade NATO from moving its high-wire act into Ukraine.

Western leaders were warned of all this by their own officials way back in 2008, as a leaked US diplomatic cable reveals: “Strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."

But even now, the West is undeterred. It is losing no time in pouring yet more weapons into Ukraine, further fueling the fire.

Dangerous caricatures

None of this, of course, means Putin’s actions are virtuous, or even wise. But for some his invasion of Ukraine looks no more irrational or dangerous than NATO’s decades of provocative moves against a nuclear-armed Russia.

And here we get to the nub of the matter. The West alone defines what “rational” means – and on that basis, its enemies can always be dismissed as deranged and evil.

Western media propaganda only serves to deepen these trends in humanizing, or otherwise, those caught up in events.

As the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association observed at the weekend, much of the coverage has been blatantly racist, with western commentators noting with sympathy that those fleeing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, unlike apparently those displaced by western invasions of the Middle East, are “like us”, “civilized” and don’t “look like refugees”.

Similarly, there is a stark contrast between the celebratory reporting of a Ukrainian “resistance” making improvised bombs against the advancing Russian army and the media’s routine denomination of Palestinians as “terrorists” for resisting Israel’s decades of occupation.

Equally, US global dominance means it dictates the military, political and diplomatic framework of international relations. Other countries, including potential rivals like Russia and China, have to operate within that framework.

That forces them to react more often than act. Which is why it is so critically important that the western media report on the events fully and honestly, not resort to easy tropes designed to turn foreign leaders into caricatures and their populations into heroes or villains.

If Putin is a madman, like Iraq’s Saddam, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders before him, then the only solution is the use of force to the bitter end.

In global power politics that potentially translates into a third European “World War”, the overthrow of Russia’s government, and Putin’s trial at The Hague or his execution. The “straitjacket” strategy. Which is precisely the catastrophic destination towards which western leaders, aided by the media, have been pushing the region over the past three decades.

There are far less dangerous ways of resolving international crises than that – but not so long as we keep peddling the myth of the “madman” enemy.

A discussion with DeSantis (Governor of Florida)

 Time for the Covid fanatics to apologize? Don't count on it! Worse, they will now double down about Russia and whatever comes next.

 Not doing your part for climate change? Not supportive enough for the latest government edict? Only pretending to be supportive? In 1997, when Deng Xiaoping said that China and Hong Kong would have the same system in 50 years, we all understood that China would become capitalist. Instead we are all in the process of becoming Chinese!

From the Tom Woods Letter:

Saturday night I received a message:

“The governor wants to invite you to a Monday event.”

Soon enough after that, I had received the details: Ron DeSantis was planning a roundtable discussion with medical professionals (which I myself am not) for the purpose of assessing the merits of various COVID policies, particularly regarding children.

The roundtable was also intended to keep these issues alive at a time when their proponents seem happy to let the news shift to other topics. We cannot forget what was done to us and to children, and the quacks who recommended these things need to be held to account.

A small number of influencers (including your host here) were invited to attend in person in order to report on and live Tweet the event to their followers. Those of you who follow me on Twitter — @ThomasEWoods — were treated to precisely that.

DeSantis himself, whom I got to chat with a bit after the event, struck me as informed, down to earth, and authentic. What you see on television is what you get in person, except in person he’s funnier and edgier.

The event itself featured such notables as Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Tracy Hoeg, Dr. Jill Ackerman, Dr. Christopher D’Adamo, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Harvey Risch, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta.

During the event an ER doctor named Joseph Fraiman offered a public apology to Professors Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and Gupta, whose anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration he had once considered dangerous. He was sure that places without harsh COVID lockdowns would experience worse outcomes.

“You were right,” he said to them. “I was wrong…. The scientist in me…had to acknowledge that my hypothesis had been falsified.”

Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya emphasized the various ways in which the people in that room had been correct from the start, and reminded people of his own work early on, in March and April 2020, showing how much more widespread the virus was than previously thought. That meant there was no way a lockdown strategy could possibly work, but it would severely harm the working class and ordinary people in general.

The event wrapped up with a striking announcement from Joseph Ladapo, the heroic Florida Surgeon General: Florida is now the first state to recommend against the vaccines for healthy children.

In short: we’ve got them on the run. (DeSantis even wondered recently whether Dr. Fauci, who seems to have disappeared, may have enrolled in the witness protection program.) But that’s not good enough. We have to make them answer for what they did.

And yet the COVID fanaticism is only one brand, if an especially destructive one, of the elites’ fanaticism.

It’s touching every issue now.

If you’re not with the establishment you’re a terrible extremist who should be shunned.

I used to say: my group, the Tom Woods Show Elite, is a particularly nice haven for people who want to stay sane during COVID.

But with every issue taking on an air of fanaticism and intolerance of dissident voices, it’s now a place for those of us with independent minds to band together.

See you inside, my friend:

http://www.SupportingListeners.com

Putin's Invasion of Ukraine - Discussion (Video)

 To understand what's going on in Ukraine right now, listen to this discussion.

 Ukraine will be wrecked by design. It could have been otherwise.

 

'Forget About COVID', They Say..

 Yes Covid is over. The right path, as advocated below would be to pause and reflect on what went wrong. Then change the system. We won't. Of course, we won't. And so we will trudge from bad to worse, from crisis to crisis, until the system crashes.  

 In-between Covid will rank with the witch hunt and Mccarthyism among the mistakes and dead ends explorations of mankind. Nothing to see there!   

And just like that, this may be our last post about Covid! What lies? What social engineering? What virus?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

Earlier this year, a phrase was trending because Bari Weiss used it on a talk show: “I’m done with Covid.” Many people cheered simply because the subject has been the source of vast oppression for billions of people for two years. 

There are two ways to be over Covid. 

One way is to do what the memo from the consultants of the Democratic National Committee suggested: declare the war won and move on. For political reasons. 

Deaths attributed to Covid nationally are higher now than they were in the summer of 2020 when the whole country was locked down. They are also higher now than during the election of November the same year.

But today we are just supposed to treat it for what it is: a seasonal virus with a disparate impact on the aged and frail. 

Rationality is back! In that sense, it’s good to forget about Covid if it means living life normally and behaving with clarity about what does and does not work to mitigate a virus. The Democrats decided that the hyper-restrictionist ways were risking political fortunes. Hence, the line and the talking points needed to change. 

Another way to get over Covid is to forget completely about the last two years, especially the astonishing failures of compulsory pandemic controls.

Forget about the school closures that cost a generation two years of learning.

Forget that the hospitals were largely closed to people without a Covid-related malady.

Forget about the preventable nursing-home deaths.

Forget that dentistry was practically abolished for a few months, or that one could not even get a haircut. 

Forget the stay-at-home orders, the church and business closures, the playground and gym closures, the bankruptcies, the travel restrictions, the firings, the crazed advice for everyone to mask up and physically separate, the record drug-related deaths, the mass depression, the segregation, the brutalization of small business, the labor-force dropouts, the forced stoppages of art and culture, and the capacity limits on venues that forced weddings and funerals to be on Zoom. 

Forget about a closer look at the bogus mathematical models, vaccine trials, the circumstances behind the Emergency Use Authorizations, the adverse effects, the inaccuracies of the PCR test, and misclassification of deaths, the billions and trillions of misdirected funds, the division of all workers between essential and nonessential, and the millions who were forced to get jabs they did not want. 

Forget about the possibility of a lab leak, the role of China, the deadly use of ventilators, the neglect of therapeutics, the near-banning of all talk of natural immunity, the overselling of the vaccine, the lost religious holidays, the lonely deaths due to the blocking of loved ones from hospitals, the censorship of science, the manipulated and hidden CDC data, the payments to the major media, the symbiotic relationship between government and Big Tech, the demonization of dissent, and the abuse of emergency powers. 

Forget how health bureaucracies headed by political appointees took over the task of regulating nearly the whole of life, while messaging the country that freedom just doesn’t matter much anymore! 

Who precisely benefits from this method of being “over Covid?”

The unrepentant hegemon that gave us this disaster to begin with. They want to be in the clear. They don’t just desire to be exonerated; they don’t want to be judged at all. They want to be unaccountable. The best path toward that end is to foster public amnesia. 

I don’t just mean the Democrats. This calamity all began under a Republican president who still retains folk-hero status. Plus all Republican governors except one (Kristi Noem of South Dakota) bought into the initial lockdowns. They don’t want to talk about it either. 

There is a vast machine extant that desperately wants everyone to forget. Not even forgive, just forget. Don’t think about the old thing. Think about the new thing instead. Don’t learn lessons. Don’t change the system. Don’t uproot the bureaucracies or examine why the court system failed us so miserably until it was too late. Don’t seek more information. Don’t seek reforms. Don’t take away powers from the CDC and NIH, much less Homeland Security. 

Meanwhile, we live amidst a crisis without precedent. It affects health, economics, law, culture, education, and science. Nothing has been left untouched. The end of travel augmented every preexisting international tension. The wild government spending and the monetary accommodation of the ballooning debt, in addition to supply chain breakages, are all directly responsible for record levels of inflation. It’s much easier to blame Putin than it is to look at the failed policies of the US and many other governments in the world. 

There are so many remaining questions. My own estimate is that we know about 5% of what we need to know to make sense of this whole disaster. What precisely were Fauci, Collins, Farrar, Birx, and the whole gang doing in February 2020 when they weren’t looking for early treatments? 

Why did so many prominent epidemiologists completely reverse their stated views on lockdowns? They flipped from being largely skeptical of coercive measures on March 2, 2020, to fully embracing the most egregious measures only a few weeks later. Moreover, there was clearly a conspiracy emanating from the top to smear dissenting scientists who later said that the lockdowns were causing vastly more harm than good. The people behind the Great Barrington Declaration were targeted by government and media for professional ruin. 

When did the vaccine companies get rolled into the mix and under what terms? We need to know the when and why of the questioning and denial of natural immunity. Who was involved in this egregious and wholly inaccurate attempt to stigmatize those who rejected the vaccine? Where were the trials for generic therapeutics that the NIH is supposed to fund? 

Why in general did an entire establishment choose panic, lockdown, and mandate over calm and the traditional practice of public health? 

I have my own questions.

What were the conditions and the messages that led the New York Times to use its podcasts and printed pages (February 27 and 28, 2020) to spread absolute panic?

This institution had never done this before in any previous pandemic. Why did it choose this path even weeks before Fauci and Birx started lobbying Trump to pull the trigger? 

To put a fine point on it: how much money was involved? 

What we need is a full timeline with every detail for two years. We need reparations for the victims. We need to take powers away from hundreds and thousands of leading politicians, scientists, public health officials and media executives. 

What changed pandemic panic to a new calm is the force of public opinion. God bless the protestors, polls, and truckers. That is a great improvement but there is a long way to go to rekindle the love of liberty that can protect us next time. It’s not about left and right. We need a new understanding of public health, bodily autonomy, and essential liberties. 

Some people want global amnesia and otherwise no change in the regime, no follow-up, no investigations, no connecting dots, no justice, no answers to burning questions. 

And consider this.

If we are so over Covid, why are people still being fired for not being vaccinated, including people with superior natural immunity? Why have the fired not been rehired? Why the masks on planes, trains, and buses? Why the continued quarantine rules? Why the restrictions on international travel? Why are children still forced to cover their faces? Why must everyone who wants to see a Broadway play be forced to cover up their smiles? 

The remnants of restrictions, mandates, and impositions are there to serve as a reminder of the prevailing ruling-class attitude toward their policy choices. There are no regrets. They have done everything right. And they still have their thumb on you. 

That is intolerable. By all means, forget about Covid and live life as normally as possible in defiance of those who live to foster fear. But, never forget the disastrous Covid restrictions that created such destruction. We cannot let anyone off the hook, much less pretend that the policy disaster that created billions of personal tragedies never happened. 

The world we live in today – with worse health, economic dislocations, demoralized and undereducated children and youth, segregations and censorships, the unquestioned ubiquity of rules manufactured by the undemocratic administrative state, the instability and fear that comes with no longer trusting the system – is a far cry from the one that existed only a few years ago. We need to know why, how, and who. There are millions of questions that cry out for answers. We must have them. And we need to work to recover, rebuild, and insure it will never happen again.