The Countries That Will Pay for the UN Tax Experiment


Posted originally on Aug 7, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

United Nations

A United Nations proposal would replace the current system of taxing each multinational subsidiary separately with a global unitary tax system. A corporation’s worldwide profits would first be combined into one total and then divided among countries according to a formula measuring where it employs workers and where its customers purchase goods and services. Each country would apply its own corporate tax rate to the portion assigned to it, regardless of where the company legally reported the profit.

Tax Justice Network estimates that this reallocation would produce an additional $500 billion in annual corporate tax revenue worldwide. It would be redistributed among governments, creating major winners while stripping revenue from countries whose economies currently benefit from corporate headquarters, intellectual property, financial services, or low-tax structures.

Ireland would suffer one of the largest losses, surrendering an estimated $11.15 billion annually, or 81.9% of the multinational corporate tax revenue measured by the study. Hong Kong would lose $9.37 billion, or 75.7%; Singapore $8 billion, or 69.2%; Switzerland $5.43 billion, or 42%; the Netherlands $3.16 billion, or 28.4%; and Malta $3.04 billion. Bermuda would lose $489 million, the British Virgin Islands $496 million, Puerto Rico $547 million, Jersey $510 million, and Mauritius $152 million.

These jurisdictions currently tax profits that multinational corporations book within their borders despite having relatively little employment or customer activity there. The UN formula would disregard where those profits are legally reported and redistribute them toward countries where the company’s workers and customers are located.

How to Work for the UN — 3 Things You Should Consider

The UN claims some of these jurisdictions could theoretically recover the lost revenue by taxing their smaller remaining profit base at much higher rates. The study estimates that the Netherlands would need an effective rate of roughly 29% to 33%, compared with its present estimated rate of 13.6%. Switzerland would need approximately 20% to 25%, up from 10.4%, while Singapore would need between 25% and 37%, up from 9.2%.

Those numbers become absurd for economies heavily dependent on profit booking. Ireland would require an effective rate between 68% and 94% to replace the revenue it loses under the various formulas. The Cayman Islands could require between 28% and 162%, while the British Virgin Islands could require anything from 9% to 643%. That is an admission that these jurisdictions could not recover their losses through ordinary taxation without destroying the economic model the UN intends to dismantle.

However, the losers are not limited to traditional tax havens. Japan would lose an estimated $34.09 billion per year, equal to 27.1% of the multinational corporate tax revenue included in the study. Denmark would lose approximately $1.8 billion, or 31.9%, while Saudi Arabia would lose $1.77 billion, or 17.9%.

The report classifies these three as “headquarters-bias” countries. Their multinational corporations report an unusually large share of global profits in the country where the parent company is headquartered, even though much of their employment and sales occurs abroad. Under the UN formula, some of that profit would be exported to foreign governments.

Japan’s result may reflect the concentration of research, intellectual property, engineering, and other high-value functions at Japanese parent companies. Yet the formula gives equal weight to employee headcount and customer location, meaning it may fail to recognize where a product was invented, financed, designed, or developed. A country could spend decades building an advanced industrial and technological base only to be told that much of the resulting profit belongs to whichever foreign country purchased the finished product.

To preserve its existing revenue, Japan would need to increase its effective corporate tax rate from approximately 30.5% to somewhere between 36.3% and 42.6%, depending on the allocation formula. Denmark would need to raise its rate from around 15% to between 25.3% and 38.8%. Saudi Arabia would need to increase its 20% effective rate to between 22.7% and 26%.

Denmark’s projected loss may be influenced by its large shipping industry and tonnage-tax regime. The report notes that $29 billion of A.P. Moller-Maersk’s $30.2 billion in 2022 pretax profit was subject to Danish or foreign tonnage taxation, producing an effective tax rate of only 3%. The proposed formula would allocate more of that profit to countries connected to Maersk’s workers and customers rather than allowing Denmark to retain the advantage of hosting the corporate headquarters.

New Zealand is also projected to lose about $220 million annually, Macao $975 million, Eswatini $22 million, and several smaller island jurisdictions would lose meaningful shares of their present corporate revenue. Some estimates for the smallest jurisdictions are based on thin reporting data and must be treated cautiously, but the direction is clear. This is a redistribution of national taxing rights, not a magical creation of $500 billion from nowhere.

Photo by Pobunite se (@pobunitese) · April 10, 2026

The report attempts to dismiss these losses by telling tax-haven nations to abandon their present economic models, increase their tax rates, invest in education and infrastructure, and diversify into other industries. That is an extraordinary display of bureaucratic arrogance. Unelected organizations are effectively telling sovereign nations that their tax policies, competitive advantages, and development strategies are unacceptable and must be replaced by a model designed in New York.

Globalist institutions do not view countries as independent societies with different resources, cultures, needs, and economic strategies. They view the world as an administrative spreadsheet. If Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, or a small Caribbean nation loses a major source of revenue, that is treated as an acceptable adjustment so long as the global model produces the desired aggregate result.

This is precisely how these organizations operate. The OECD, IMF, European Union, and United Nations always claim that another layer of coordination will produce fairness, stability, and efficiency. What actually appears is another permanent bureaucracy with committees, reporting mandates, enforcement mechanisms, technical standards, review conferences, and dispute panels.

The treaty language proposed by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice would empower a Conference of the Parties to assess the allocation of taxing rights across all forms of taxation with cross-border effects and adopt additional measures it considers appropriate. It also calls for an international system based on consolidated global profits, an agreed allocation formula, regular reviews, sector-specific rules, and an “effective global minimum corporate tax rate.”

The proposal explicitly says the convention should cover “all types of taxes with transboundary effects.” Once established, the bureaucracy could move into wealth taxes, digital taxes, environmental taxes, financial-transaction taxes, and the taxation of individuals deemed internationally mobile.

These global organizations protect bureaucracy before sovereignty because bureaucracy is their product. They do not produce goods, discover medicine, grow food, or create wealth. They produce regulations, standards, frameworks, and reporting requirements that justify larger budgets and greater authority. Every disagreement becomes evidence that the world needs more coordination, and every failure becomes an excuse to expand the institution that designed the failed policy.

Japan, Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark, and the other losing jurisdictions will not be incidental casualties. Their tax bases are being deliberately redistributed under a formula they may not control. The global bureaucracy calls this fairness because it evaluates success by the amount of money transferred into government hands, not by whether individual nations retain the right to govern themselves.

Polls Show Europe Wants War


Posted Aug 7, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Hi Tech World War III

The latest polling from Europe exposes the hypocrisy behind the entire war campaign. Europeans have been frightened into supporting larger military budgets, common European debt, weapons for Ukraine, and an EU defense structure, but when they are asked whether they would personally pick up a rifle, the enthusiasm suddenly disappears. They support war in theory as long as Ukrainians, professional soldiers, or somebody else’s children are forced to die for it.

The European Council on Foreign Relations surveyed 19,481 adults across 15 European countries in May 2026. The results were presented under the absurdly triumphant title “Europeans are ready to defend themselves,” yet the underlying figures tell a far more complicated story. Europeans may be prepared to borrow money and purchase weapons, but most are not prepared to bear the physical cost of the policies they endorse.

The EU’s Spring 2026 Eurobarometer found that 81% support a common European defense and security policy, while 76% believe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens EU security. Another 76% said the EU should continue supporting Ukraine until a “just and lasting peace” is achieved. Those phrases are deliberately vague.

When the questions become personal, the numbers collapse. A recent cross-NATO study involving more than 31,000 respondents found that only 27% of Germans, 25% of Italians, 30% of the Dutch, and 33% of Hungarians and Czechs were willing to fight for their own countries. Sweden reached 66%, Finland 64%, Norway 61%, Lithuania 52%, and Poland 49%, which reflects the enormous geographical and cultural differences that Brussels pretends do not exist.

The ECFR polling likewise found that only about 38% of Europeans said they would personally fight if their country were attacked. Germany fell to just 29%. Asked whether their troops should defend a Baltic NATO member from a Russian attack, support averaged only 39%, while 43% opposed deployment. Sweden and Denmark reached roughly 60% to 62%, but opposition overwhelmed support in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, and Romania.

This is the fundamental weakness in NATO’s political theater. Article 5 is presented as an automatic suicide pact, but the treaty does not cause populations to acquire the will to fight merely because politicians sign communiqués. Governments may order troops into battle, yet no alliance can manufacture morale through press conferences.

An admittedly non-representative Euronews online poll received nearly 10,000 responses to the question, “Would you fight for the EU’s borders?” Approximately 75% said no, only 19% said yes, and the remainder were uncertain. A Forsa poll in Germany found that only 16% would “definitely” take up arms if Germany were attacked. Another 22% said they probably would, while 59% said they probably or definitely would not. Among women, unwillingness reached 72%. Yet other polls found majorities supporting some form of military conscription. In other words, many Germans support a draft because they assume it will fall on someone else.

The financial polling exposes the same cowardice. The 2026 ECFR survey found that 47% supported collective European borrowing to finance defense. Support reached 59% in Portugal, 56% in Denmark, 55% in the Netherlands, and 53% in Spain. Borrowing is naturally popular because politicians pretend no one must pay for it.

When respondents were asked whether they would accept cuts to domestic public spending to fund defense, opposition surged to 63% in Italy, 59% in Austria, 56% in Germany, 54% in Spain, and 52% in Denmark. Europeans want the weapons, but they do not want lower pensions, reduced welfare, higher taxes, or fewer government services. They want war financed through debt so the bill can be concealed and transferred to the next generation.

Italy remains the clearest exception. In the May 2026 ECFR poll, 58% of Italians opposed additional military spending while only 28% supported it. Italy also recorded one of the lowest levels of willingness to fight, at roughly 25%. The Italian public understands that a nation carrying enormous public debt cannot borrow its way into another foreign war without eventually destroying its domestic economy.

European voters still view Ukraine favorably, but they do not want direct military responsibility. The ECFR survey found majorities opposed sending national troops into Ukraine even after a peace agreement, including in Germany, France, and Poland. Support for international peacekeeping deployments was weak, reaching only 18% in Denmark, 17% in Finland, 15% in Spain and Portugal, and 11% in Britain under the relevant polling formulation.

They call Ukraine an ally and demand that it continue fighting, but they refuse to send their own sons and daughters. This is precisely the arrangement European leaders prefer. Ukrainians supply the bodies, European taxpayers supply the money, defense contractors receive the contracts, and politicians receive a permanent foreign enemy to blame for every domestic failure.

Russia Prepares Children for War


Posted originally on Aug 7, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Freedoms 1

Russia is now doubling the military content imposed on school children. Beginning September 1, military instruction in the compulsory course called “Fundamentals of Security and Defense of the Motherland” will rise from 20% to 50% of teaching time for students in grades six through eleven. The Russian government is converting the classroom into a military recruitment center.

The program reportedly includes drone operation, engineering instruction, military camps, and preparation for future service. Occupation authorities in Donetsk have approved a ten-year plan extending through 2036, while vocational students in occupied Kherson are being taught to operate, maintain, and repair drones. In occupied Luhansk, children are being absorbed into cadet groups, political organizations, and so-called patriotic movements designed to replace their identity with loyalty to Moscow.

Critics who say I only condemn Zelensky and Europe have not been reading my work closely. EVERY GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT. Few truly care about future generations. The masses are the disposable great unwashed to be used as their overlords see fit. Granted, many leaders are worse than others, but no one in government is “the good guy” when we are dealing with war. I do believe Putin attempted to extend the olive branch and end this conflict numerous times over, but that is simply impossible since the Western decision-makers believe this conflict can save their nations from the sovereign debt crisis. They are WRONG but there is too much tied into Ukraine at this point for the war to simply end. Kids will learn how to murder their fellow human because that is the world they will be raised in and the skills necessary to propel the machine. At the same time, this will not be a forever indefinite war. The world will not look the same once it is over.

Intellectual Violence: How Putin's Ideology Is Infiltrating Education | ISPI

Now the Kremlin is manufacturing a permanent mobilization reserve. The Eastern Human Rights Group warned that the objective is to shape children in both “skills and worldview,” and the inclusion of girls substantially expands the state’s potential manpower pool. A senior Russian lawmaker has even proposed beginning mandatory military training in the fifth grade, demonstrating how far the government is prepared to reach into childhood.

By 2036, many of today’s Kremlin officials will be retired or dead, while the children conditioned in their classrooms will be old enough to fight the next war. Believe me, the Russian oligarchs who want to replace Putin are ready to take this conflict to the next level. This is the ancient crime of government repeated once again—the old create the conflict, conceal their failures beneath patriotism, and send the young to settle the account in blood.

Categories:War

THE WATER WARS HAVE BEGUN


Posted originally on Aug 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

The World Economic Forum has openly proclaimed 2026 the “Year of Water” and has introduced what it calls “Blue Davos,” bringing freshwater, ocean policy, food security, investment, and the so-called blue economy together beneath one institutional umbrella. The Forum states that its annual meeting will concentrate on “freshwater access and management, blue food security and ocean protection.” Those words may sound harmless to anyone who has never studied how political power actually expands, but management always means that someone will decide who receives a resource, how much they may use, what price they must pay, and under what conditions access may be withdrawn.

Why has water suddenly become the great global priority? Why are the same organizations that lectured the world about carbon now speaking about basin-level partnerships, water finance, private-sector participation, international agreements, and scalable systems of allocation? The Forum itself says that “the complexity of the water crisis demands these ideas are scaled up, and fast.” Whenever unelected organizations insist that an alleged crisis requires policies to be scaled rapidly, the public should immediately ask who will acquire the power, who will provide the capital, and who will control the infrastructure after the emergency has passed.

The appearance of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe in this story is not some invention of social media. Brabeck, the former chief executive and chairman of Nestlé, previously chaired the 2030 Water Resources Group and served for years within the World Economic Forum’s leadership. When Klaus Schwab resigned in April 2025, the Forum’s board unanimously appointed Brabeck as interim chairman. He stepped down in August 2025, so it would be false to claim that he remains the current head, but the symbolism was extraordinary.

This thinking treats water as an asset to be measured, priced, financed, traded, and allocated through partnerships between governments and multinational corporations. They will describe this as resilience, sustainability, and efficient management, but history demonstrates that every system of centralized allocation eventually produces political preferences.

Where Data Centers Get Their Water: A Hike to the Source

Bill Gates has also warned about the possibility of a sixth mass extinction due to water shortages. Gates did not say that an imminent mass extinction would be caused specifically by water shortages. Writing about Elizabeth Kolbert’s work, he stated that human activity was “leading to the sixth mass extinction in the Earth’s history,” adding, “Think of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs—only this time the cataclysm is man-made.”

The political class understands that water is different from every other commodity. People can reduce their use of gasoline, postpone the purchase of a car, turn down the thermostat, or survive without the latest technology, but nobody can opt out of water. Whoever controls its allocation possesses authority over agriculture, manufacturing, housing, food, population movement, and life itself. Oil shaped twentieth-century geopolitics because industrial economies depended upon it, but water will shape the coming era because civilization cannot exist without it at any price.

Artificial intelligence has now supplied the perfect justification for expanding this apparatus. Data centers require enormous quantities of electricity, while certain cooling systems consume water directly through evaporation. Other estimates include the water used to generate electricity and manufacture semiconductors, which means that public claims about AI’s water consumption often combine entirely different categories. There is a tremendous difference between water withdrawn, water circulated, water discharged, and water actually consumed, yet the headlines rarely explain these distinctions because frightening totals are politically more useful than transparent accounting.

The man in the video above owns a company, Enseva, and he holds 12 patents on designing and building data centers without using water. Cooling designs vary, closed systems can recirculate water, dry cooling can sharply reduce consumption, and facilities in different climates cannot be compared honestly through a single universal estimate. Are the authorities measuring the actual requirements of particular facilities, or are projected AI demands being used to justify infrastructure, restrictions, and allocation powers that extend far beyond AI?

Crucial question that I am not too afraid to ask: Are they hoarding and storing water?

Every proposed data center should disclose its expected withdrawals, actual consumption, water source, cooling design, discharge volume, electricity-related water footprint, drought contingency plan, and contractual priority during shortages. If officials cannot provide those numbers, they have no legitimate basis for demanding that households, farms, or small businesses surrender access in the name of technological progress.

The water wars will not necessarily begin with soldiers marching toward a river. They will begin through permits, compulsory meters, emergency declarations, tiered pricing, groundwater restrictions, digital monitoring, and public-private agreements that few citizens will ever read. They will appear as administrative decisions made by experts who insist that no alternative exists, while governments blame climate change, corporations blame AI, and international organizations demand that authority be centralized before the crisis becomes worse.

The shift from green to blue is not merely a change in environmental branding. It represents the movement of political attention and investment capital toward the most indispensable resource on Earth. Once water becomes fully financialized and access is integrated into centralized systems of permission, the government will no longer need to confiscate property directly because it will possess something far more powerful—the ability to determine whether that property may receive water.

The next great struggle will be presented as conservation against waste, science against ignorance, and collective survival against selfish individual use. Yet beneath the slogans will remain the oldest political question in civilization: who decides? If the public waits until that decision has been transferred permanently to an alliance of bureaucrats, financiers, and multinational corporations, the water wars will already have been lost before most people even realized they had begun.

Denmark Is Drafting Its Youth for Europe’s Manufactured War


Posted originally onAug 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Reuters reports that 1,600 Danish recruits began an expanded 11-month term of military service on August 3, up from only four months under the previous system. Denmark has extended conscription to women, plans to increase the annual intake from roughly 5,000 to 7,500 by 2033, and will send conscripts to Greenland for the first time. Europe is not preparing for peace. It is preparing an entire generation for a war its political class refuses to prevent.

The new Danish program requires five months of basic training followed by six months of operational service. New tracks include drone warfare, and more than 100 conscripts will be sent to Greenland to assume military duties previously performed by professional soldiers. The government calls this security. I call it the gradual conversion of ordinary citizens into military assets for politicians who have spent years escalating every dispute they could have negotiated.

Denmark still uses volunteers before filling vacancies through a lottery, but a lottery backed by state coercion is still conscription. Every healthy man and woman who turns 18 enters a system that can seize nearly one year of life because politicians in Copenhagen, Brussels, and NATO have decided that Russia represents a permanent threat. When voluntary recruitment no longer supplies enough bodies, the meaning of “service” will become much clearer.

Denmark to draft women into army amid growing Russian aggression, military  expansion | CBC News

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says Denmark is prepared to defend every inch of NATO territory, “including our own.” That statement also refers to Greenland, where Trump’s repeated demands for American control have created a separate confrontation. Denmark is therefore invoking both Russia and the United States to justify a military expansion that began with Ukraine and now extends into the Arctic.

The Danes are told that Moscow may eventually attack NATO, although Russia has struggled for years to achieve limited territorial objectives in Ukraine. Russia has neither the manpower nor the economic incentive to occupy Europe. Invading a NATO member would also trigger a confrontation with an alliance possessing vastly greater combined resources and nuclear weapons. The story that Russian tanks are preparing to roll from Ukraine through Denmark is political propaganda designed to frighten the public into surrendering money and children.

Denmark says it has supplied approximately €9.7 billion in military support and €1.1 billion in civilian assistance to Ukraine, excluding its indirect contributions through the European Union. Its national Ukraine Fund allocated DKK 60.4 billion, or roughly €8.1 billion, for military support between 2023 and 2028. Copenhagen then announced a 30th military package worth another DKK 4.4 billion, approximately $672 million, in June 2026.

Danish ??female Soldier

This is an enormous commitment for a country with only about six million people. Denmark has provided F-16 aircraft, artillery, tanks, missiles, drones, air-defense equipment, ammunition, training, and direct financing for Ukrainian weapons production. It pioneered the so-called Danish model under which outside governments pay Ukrainian companies to manufacture weapons for Kyiv.

Military and security spending has risen to roughly 3.5% of Danish GDP in 2026. Denmark created a DKK 50 billion fund, about $7 billion, to accelerate military purchases and has already aligned itself with NATO’s march toward a broader 5% defense-and-security objective. Before the Ukraine conflict, NATO’s European members spent far less, but fear has become the most effective budgetary weapon invented by government.

The Danish budget surplus is already projected to fall from 2.9% of GDP in 2025 to 0.9% in 2026 and 0.5% in 2027. The European Commission explicitly attributes that deterioration partly to greater defense spending and support for Ukraine. Even a fiscally stronger country is being pulled toward the same war economy consuming the rest of Europe.

The debt problem explains why Brussels embraces militarization with such enthusiasm. Governments that cannot win public support for unlimited borrowing can always manufacture an emergency. Climate was used to justify joint programs, subsidies, taxation, and centralized authority. COVID was used to suspend fiscal restraints and expand government power. Now Russia is being used to place defense spending beyond normal budget limitations.

Germany changed its constitutional fiscal rules to permit enormous military borrowing. The European Union proposed a €2 trillion seven-year budget containing €131 billion for militarization, five times the previous defense allocation. Brussels created loan schemes for weapons, while NATO members committed themselves to spending targets that will redirect trillions into defense contractors and government-controlled projects.

NATO was expected to spend around $1.59 trillion in 2025, with Canada and Europe accounting for approximately $608 billion. The June 2025 Hague commitment to move toward 5% of GDP by 2035 will require a staggering transfer of capital from the productive economy into the military establishment. Europe cannot find money to reduce taxes, restore cheap energy, or revive industry, but it always discovers another billion for weapons and Ukraine.

The draft is the human side of that transfer. First, they take the taxpayer’s income. Then they borrow against the taxpayer’s future. Finally, when the professional military cannot meet the politicians’ ambitions, they take the taxpayer’s children. The state consumes capital and labor to defend a strategy that the public was never allowed to vote upon honestly.

They will sell Denmark’s program as equality because women are now subject to the same coercion as men. Equality does not transform state compulsion into liberty. A government violating everyone equally is still violating everyone. True equality would permit every adult to decide whether a foreign geopolitical project is worth sacrificing eleven months, a career, a family, or eventually a life.

The Old Are Volunteering the Young for War


Posted originally on Aug 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

According to the European Council on Foreign Relations, support for mandatory military service reached 62% in France, 53% in Germany, and 51% in Poland. Yet the most revealing numbers appear when the German results are divided by age, because net opposition among those aged 18 to 29 reached 46%, while net support among respondents over 70 stood at 49%.

The people safely beyond military age are volunteering the young for war. They will not receive the draft notice, undergo the medical examination, surrender their careers, or be ordered into a trench. They will watch the war on television while congratulating themselves for supporting “national service,” as if clicking yes in a poll were an act of personal courage.

There is something profoundly immoral about demanding a sacrifice that you will never be required to make. If those over 70 believe so passionately in military service, governments can create senior battalions and hand them the rifles first. Let the politicians, retired bureaucrats, television commentators, and comfortable academics who preach war demonstrate their convictions personally before they conscript an 18-year-old who wants nothing to do with their geopolitical fantasies.

Herbert Hoover “Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and  die.” Herbert Hoover witnessed the human cost of political decisions. This  quote exposes the tragic imbalance of war.

Europe’s political class speaks endlessly about democracy, yet conscription is the state claiming ownership over the individual. It declares that your body, your time, and perhaps your life belong to the government whenever politicians decide that their diplomatic failures require fresh blood. They call this “service” because admitting that it is involuntary servitude would reveal the policy for what it actually is.

The contradiction becomes even more obscene when the same governments that neglected their militaries, mismanaged their economies, destroyed affordable energy, and antagonized foreign powers suddenly lecture the young about duty. These politicians created the crisis, accumulated the debt, dismantled Europe’s industrial base, and refused every opportunity for serious diplomacy. Their solution is now to seize a generation that had no voice in those decisions and force it to pay the bill.

Young Europeans understand precisely what is being demanded of them. They are being told that they must sacrifice their freedom to preserve a political order that has saddled them with unaffordable housing, stagnant wages, deteriorating public services, crushing taxation, and mountains of sovereign debt. The establishment has offered them no future, yet it suddenly insists that they must be prepared to die defending it.

Politicians carefully disguise conscription as a matter of shared responsibility, but the burden will never be shared equally. The children of the politically connected will find administrative positions, medical exemptions, university deferments, or comfortable assignments far from the front. It has always been the working class that supplies the bodies while the ruling class supplies the speeches.

Modern warfare makes this deception even more grotesque. These young people would not be marching through fields in some romantic nineteenth-century campaign. They could be tracked by satellites, hunted by drones, targeted by precision missiles, and killed by an operator sitting hundreds of miles away. Those advocating conscription are discussing human beings as replaceable military inventory while pretending that the word “duty” somehow sanitizes the transaction.

Europe’s aging political establishment cannot manufacture patriotism by decree. Patriotism must be earned through competent government, legitimate institutions, and a nation that respects the rights of its citizens. A government that treats young people as taxable assets in peacetime and disposable assets in wartime should not be surprised when they refuse to participate.

The young are not cowards for rejecting conscription, nor do elderly voters become courageous by supporting it. Courage means accepting danger yourself; hypocrisy means assigning that danger to someone else. Until the loudest advocates of war are willing to stand at the front of the recruitment line, their demands for sacrifice are merely the politics of cowardice dressed in the flag.

Neocon & Their Lies


Posted originally on Aug 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

QUESTION: Do you mind if I ask something personal? It’s clear the neoconservatives aren’t fond of you, and I imagine the feeling is mutual. Since I know you’ve met quite a few of them face-to-face, was there a particular moment or encounter that personally struck a nerve with you?

EJ

ANSWER: That is an interesting question. Aside from being misled that I initially believed they were economic conservatives, I came to see their disregard for human life and history. I lost high school friends in Vietnam. Others in Iraq. My family has fought in every American war. My cousin still has the musket from the Armstrong who fought in the American Revolution. There’s a profound difference between defending your homeland and being sent to war on false pretenses to satisfy some deranged political theory of world domination.

NorthwoodsMemorandum

The Vietnam veterans I’ve known are among the most anguished. They carry the weight of knowing, even today, that they were sent to fight for a lie. Neoconservatism, at its core, tends to elevate ideological and strategic goals above the human toll of warfare. That’s certainly a point of fierce political disagreement, but if you look at the ideology, its history, and how it’s played out, it becomes clearer why so many see it that way—and why that perspective feels deeply personal to those of us who’ve lost people along the way. From Project Northwoods willing to kill American civilians just to blame it on Cuba to justify a war to assassinatinge JFK because he sought peace with the USSR.

Kristol Irving Neocon

This ideology’s roots goes back to the debunked political theory of Trotskyite ideology of the early 20th Century. This is a reference to the fact that many early neoconservatives were former LEFTISTS who became disillusioned with liberalism and the counterculture of the 1960s . Irving Kristol was  a disillusioned liberal who became a foundational figure of neoconservatism. While he held a deep concern for the survival of Israel and wrote about it in those terms, there has always been a debate if he and other were covertly just wanted war to protect Israel in the direct sense.

Weekly Standard September 1996 Fromnt Back Cover

Irving Kristol remained sympathetic to the goals of the New Deal and the Great Society, but he grew skeptical of government planning and what he saw as the vague idealism of left-wing ideologues. He rejected the conservative anti-New Deal stance of Barry Goldwater in 1964, but also distrusted the radical dissent of the counterculture. While he is credited with this dogmatic view, I knew his son and even helped him start his magazine the Weekly Standard taking the back page to kick off his venture.

Who_Killed_The_Weekly_Standard_The_New_Yorker 2019
1 Dick Cheney

I came to understand that I was wrong. Bill was not about economic conservatism. This was all about geopolitical war and indeed to support Israel. I had discussions about how taking down Saddam Husein in Iraq and then others was necessary to bring peace to the Middle East. This dogmatic view concerned me. Bill Kristol was so anti-Trump because he was against war that he killed his own magazine with his Neocon views. Bill Kristol, the prominent neoconservative commentator and founder of The Weekly Standard, did endorse Kamala Harris for president in the 2024 election along with Dick Cheney. This proved their movement was never about economics.

The Neocon ideology is characterized by a strong endorsement of military instruments to promote what is viewed as the U.S. national interest, a concept scholars describe as a mix of “assertive nationalism” and “militarism.” The belief is that American military might should be used to spread democracy and freedom, even by force and without international cooperation if necessary. I disagreed since I believed that the very usurpation of power to effectively create a coup of American foreign policy was taking place before my eyes during Bush Jr’s administration.

Khruschev Nikta

This was all justified by a powerful sense of American exceptionalism and a moralistic view of the world, dividing it into allies and adversaries I came to see was a reaction to Khrushchev’s (1953-1964) “we will bury you” boast of November 18th, 1956 spoken at the Polish Embassy. That boast was standard Communist view that recessions and depression was a flaw of Capitalism and this Marxism would eliminate that.

Neocon staring into the Eyes of Death

The Neocon stated goal became more radical after Irving to justify using U.S. power to create a world of democracies, which, in their view, are inherently more peaceful. Being a student of political systems, we ourselves did not live under a democracy. I saw a usurpation of power through UNELECTED means to achieve a fake goal of morality that allowed them to look at themselves in the mirror as righteous rather than usurpers seeking to create peace by killing all your enemies.

What I write about is not conspiracy theory. For whatever reason, I seem to have ended up in the middle of so many things, which is why they are so determined to try to prevent people from listening to me.

The Gold Paradox


Posted originally on Aug 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Gold_Paradox August 2026

This is an important report discussing the real implications of Gold and why it is NOT a hedge against inflation or against transitory geopolitical events. This goes into the real driving forces behind gold and it also includes silver. This is the PARADOX how gold has declined with rising oil and geopolitics that all comes back to what do you believe. This includes projections into 2032.

Gold_Paradox August 2026 INDEX

Zelensky Pushing For WWIII


Posted originally on Aug 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Russian_Ruble Y Combined 8 4 26

The September Duma Elections – Will Putin Face Pressure to Escalate or Moderate?

One of the greatest mistakes analysts make is assuming that international events are driven solely by the decisions of a single leader. They personalize history, reducing complex geopolitical developments to one individual. Netanyahu did that assassinating the Ayatollah assuming instant victory. The world is far more complicated. Political leaders are often reacting to internal pressures that are invisible to outside observers.

The upcoming State Duma elections deserve attention not because they are likely to determine who governs Russia immediately, but because they may reveal how much political room President Vladimir Putin has to maneuver as the war and the broader confrontation with the West continue.

Sanctions Chains

The Western Miscalculation

Since 2022, much of the Western narrative has assumed that economic sanctions would rapidly undermine Putin’s domestic support and eventually force either a change in policy or a change in leadership. This is the standard Neocon playbook which has NEVER worked even once. But they simply feel better punishing someone they hate. That Neocon forecast has repeatedly underestimated Russia’s ability to adapt economically while overestimating the willingness of the Russian political establishment to fragment during an external confrontation. Their sanctions against Iran were first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979, triggered by the Iran hostage crisis . This initial action has been followed by several significant expansions over the decades, creating a layered and complex sanctions regime.The U.S. sanctions on Cuba were imposed in a series of steps, beginning in 1960 and culminating in a comprehensive embargo in February 1962. They failed with Iran and Cuba.

History teaches that sanctions do not produce the political outcome intended by those imposing them. More often they strengthen nationalist sentiment by allowing governments to portray outside pressure as an attack on the nation rather than on the ruling administration. This often strengthens the government they seek to overthrow.

Elections in every country, even where the outcome is largely expected, serve as an important measure of elite cohesion and public confidence. This is often why those in power seek to rig elections to retain power.

There are signs that Ukraine’s deep strikes inside Russia are creating pressure and dilemmas for the Kremlin. However, there is no direct evidence that this has led to explicit calls from Russian hawks for tactical nuclear weapons just yet. Replace Putin, and this can become nuclear faster tan anyone realize. Nuking Kiev would probably save the world not unlike the US did to Japan. It would be a demonstration to the EU that they better think twice about trying to destroy Russia.

Kremlin_drops_term_Special_Operation_officially_calls_conflict_in_Ukraine_a_war

Retaliation vs. Restraint

There is evidence based on my sources that Ukraine’s attacks are provoking a strong military response. The Kremlin has directly stated that it will continue to increase military pressure on Ukraine in response to these strikes. However, the Kremlin has also changed the official classification from a special operation that was intended to protect the Donbas from the Ukrainians, to now they have recognized that they are at war with Ukraine. That means nukes are not out of the question especially when we have a Panic Cycle in 2027 for Russia and against in 2032.

2026_07_12_20_01_18_Ukrainian_commander_says_Moscow_will_fall_Here_s_why_and_39_more_pages_Perso

A Kremlin spokesman has also indicated that the more Ukraine strikes Russian infrastructure, the larger the “security zone” and “buffer zone” Russia will need to establish, suggesting a strategy of territorial expansion to push Ukrainian forces further from Russian borders . Zelensky is a Neo-Nazi and a war criminal.He knows that he is deliberately trying to provoke Russia into a major war where he can call in NATO and his goal is the destruction of Russia and the Russian people. Ukraine has stated that their goal is to destroy Moscow. The hardliners are justified in raising nuclear weapons to wipe Kiev off the face of the earth. This is a fight to the death, do not assume there is some peaceful solution.

Putin’s Reluctance to Use Nuclear Weapons

Putin has been tremendously restrained and has resisted calls to use nuclear weapons. Dmitry Suslov, a Russian international relations scholar, in a recent interview stated that there is no scenario for Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine. He argued that Russia’s nuclear doctrine is focused on deterring NATO, not Ukraine. In his view, a nuclear strike would only be a consideration in the event of a direct war between Russia and NATO. Not everyone agrees.

Instead of a nuclear response, the Russian strategy has been focused on conventional retaliation. Suslov explicitly states that the proper reaction to the strikes is to “strengthen Russian air defense” and “intensify strikes on Ukraine” , which aligns with the military actions described in other reports. This may sound nice, but Zelensky is trying to destroy Russia.

The some Russian hawks or their version of Lindsey Graham are advocating for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in response to Ukraine’s deep strikes. Other are arguing that such an option is is a last-resort deterrence against the West, not as a tool to counter Ukrainian drone and missile attacks. To a large extent, this is naive. Ukraine is a proxy war and NATO is firmly behind them.

Zelensky_Tells_Trump_NATO or Nukes
2023_02_07_Zelensky_claims he did not Call_on_NATO_to_Nuke_Moscow

This is a war with the EU and NATO. Zelensky is hoping to push Russia to the point that it has no other choice but to use nuclear weapons and he has even previously called for NATO to nuke Moscow first. While Zelensky claims he did not, I do not find that claim credible.

Zelensky has made statements regarding nuclear weapons and Ukraine’s security that have sparked strong reactions and been interpreted by Russia as a form of “nuclear blackmail” .

Call for “Preventive Measures”: In October 2022, President Zelensky gave an interview that was widely translated as a call for “pre-emptive strikes” on Russia. He later clarified that he was actually calling for “preventive measures” such as international sanctions, not military attacks, and stated that his initial remarks had been misunderstood and mistranslated.

Nuclear Weapons as “Security Guarantee”: In multiple interviews in early 2026, President Zelensky suggested that without NATO membership, Ukraine would need a different kind of security guarantee. He was quoted as saying that Ukraine is in a “club of countries that can be attacked at will” because it does not have nuclear weapons, implying that acquiring them could be a path to security. He is attacking deep into Russia who has more nukes than anyone and it has not detered Zelensky.

Zelensky has also explicitly sought to destroy all of the energy production of Russia despite the fact that this would undermine most of Asia from India to China. Zelensky does not care about the Ukrainian people. All he had to do was honor the Minsk Agreement and there would not have been a war. The Donbas region are ethnically Russians who have a right to autonomy from Ukraine which engages in ethnic cleansing of Russians. The EU and NATO negotiated in bad faith and have always sought this war with Russia. It will have to resort to nuclear weapons for there is no negotiation with Ukraine on this issue of the Donbas. Zelensky has outlawed their language and religion. Even the Pope has come out against Zelensky. The EU is now supporting ethnic cleansing and refuse to discuss what the Ukrainians did killing Russians on Odessa, which began the entire separatist movement.

Merkel_Minsk_Buy_Time_to Prepare for wart

Germany Cannot Work Seven Days a Week to Escape Political Suicide


Posted originally on Aug 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Moody's confirms Germany's rating at Aaa, with stable outlook, but stagnant  economy still expected for 2025 | The Corner

Germany’s political class has finally discovered the source of the nation’s economic collapse, and naturally, it is everyone except the politicians who created it. Germany is considering weakening its revered Sonntagsruhe, or “Sunday rest,” as officials search desperately for some way to revive an economy they have suffocated with high taxes, unaffordable energy, endless regulation, and ideological nonsense. Their brilliant solution is to keep stores and businesses operating seven days a week, tighten sick-leave rules, push people to work longer, and gradually raise the retirement age. They destroyed the German economic model and now expect the German people to surrender their Sundays to repair it.

Let us be clear about what is actually being proposed because this is not yet a literal order requiring every German to work seven consecutive days. The government is moving toward a seven-day commercial economy by expanding Sunday opening, creating incentives for holiday work, weakening traditional restrictions on Sunday labor, and shifting working-time rules from a daily limit toward a more flexible weekly calculation. Once Sunday becomes merely another commercial day, the pressure will spread from retailers to suppliers, warehouses, delivery companies, security firms, cleaners, transportation workers, and families expected to arrange their lives around rotating schedules. That is how governments destroy social custom.

Sonntagsruhe is not some meaningless inconvenience left over from another century. The protection of Sunday as a day of rest and spiritual reflection is incorporated into Germany’s Basic Law through Article 140 and Article 139 of the Weimar Constitution. It created one common day when families could gather, churches could function, clubs and communities could meet, and people could participate in society without arranging their lives around an employer’s schedule. Even those who are not religious benefit from a shared day of rest because a society is more than a collection of workers, taxpayers, and consumers whose only purpose is to keep money circulating.

Destroying that common day will not restore productivity. It will merely spread the same amount of consumption across seven days instead of six while increasing labor, energy, transportation, and operating costs. A German family does not magically receive more disposable income because a department store opens on Sunday. If households are being crushed by taxes, housing costs, food inflation, and energy bills, opening the doors for another 12 hours does not create purchasing power. It simply forces retailers to compete over the same depleted pool of money while paying to keep the lights on for another day.

Friedrich Merz pitches Germany as 'Europe's bedrock of stability' to  investors

Germany’s economy has barely moved since 2019. The IMF calculated that German output grew by only 0.1% over five years while the United States expanded by 12% and the euro area by roughly 4%. German industry has contracted every year since 2022, and the Federation of German Industries warned that 2026 may bring stagnation at best, with manufacturing potentially shrinking for a fifth consecutive year. Industrial capacity utilization is sitting only slightly above 78%, yet the politicians apparently believe the problem is that Germans are resting on Sunday.

Factories are not leaving because the local bakery closes one day each week. Industry is leaving because Germany deliberately destroyed its access to dependable and competitively priced energy. Berlin shut down the last nuclear reactors, abandoned the Russian energy relationship without securing an affordable replacement, imposed the costly Green agenda on producers, and then acted astonished when chemicals, steel, glass, machinery, and automobile production became uncompetitive. You cannot operate an industrial economy on speeches about climate virtue while importing more expensive energy and pretending the cost does not flow through every product made in the country.

The government is simultaneously preparing €10 billion in tax relief while increasing the top income-tax rate from 45% to 47%. This is the standard European shell game. They take from one pocket, return a fraction to another, and announce a historic reform while the bureaucracy continues consuming the economy. A two-parent family with two children and €60,000 in taxable income may eventually receive about €600 a year in relief, which comes to roughly €11.50 per week. That will not compensate for soaring energy costs, lost purchasing power, or the growing burden of financing pensions, welfare, government debt, mass migration, and military expansion.

Sonntagsruhe Images – Browse 279 Stock Photos, Vectors, and Video | Adobe  Stock

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expects Germany to grow by only 0.7% in 2026 on a working-day-adjusted basis and 1.1% in 2027. Much of even that weak expansion is expected to come from debt-financed government spending rather than a genuine revival of the productive private economy. Berlin has created a €500 billion infrastructure and climate fund while planning to increase defense spending from 2.1% of GDP in 2024 to 3.5% by 2029. The political class will borrow hundreds of billions for its chosen projects and military ambitions, yet it tells workers that they must sacrifice Sunday because they are not producing enough to sustain the state.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz previously admitted that Germany’s welfare state “can no longer be financed with what we produce in the economy.” That admission is correct, but the response is completely backward. The productive economy should not exist merely to satisfy the endless demands of government. The government must be reduced to what the productive economy can reasonably support. Instead, politicians preserve the bureaucracy, protect their political programs, expand military expenditures, and then demand more hours from the people who already finance the entire circus.

The attacks on sick leave reveal the same contempt. Germany does have an absenteeism problem, but politicians have seized upon it as a convenient excuse to blame workers for national stagnation. The government wants employers to demand a medical certificate on the first day of illness and to abolish the ability to obtain short-term sick notes by telephone. Yet telephone sick notes reportedly account for less than 1% of all certified leave. This is political theater designed to create the impression that lazy workers destroyed the economy when the people writing these policies refuse to accept responsibility for anything.

A society cannot tax work relentlessly, increase the cost of living, erode the value of wages, make housing unaffordable, demand that parents both work, raise the retirement age, and then confiscate the one day when families can reliably be together. The result will not be a stronger work ethic. It will be burnout, lower birth rates, more illness, less community participation, and deeper resentment toward a government that treats human beings as units of taxable production.

Germany already faces a severe demographic crisis, and dismantling Sunday rest will make that problem worse. Young people are delaying families because housing, childcare, and basic living costs have become prohibitive. Women account for a large majority of part-time workers, often because they are caring for children or elderly relatives. Rather than repair the care system or reduce the tax penalty imposed on working families, politicians condemn “lifestyle part-time work” and demand that people spend more of their lives laboring for a system that offers them less security every year.

Culture matters because it is the glue that holds a nation together when government fails. Sonntagsruhe created a predictable rhythm of life that survived wars, political upheaval, reunification, and enormous economic change. Once that shared rhythm is destroyed, it will not easily return. Small family businesses will be pressured to open merely because multinational chains can absorb the additional staffing costs. Employees will lose weekends with their children. Churches, clubs, sports organizations, and local communities will compete with rotating work schedules. Germany will gain another shopping day while losing another piece of itself.

Politicians always demand sacrifice from everyone beneath them. They never propose closing ministries, abolishing useless agencies, ending failed climate programs, reducing their own salaries, dismantling Brussels’ bureaucracy, or admitting that sanctions and geopolitical adventures carried an enormous domestic cost. They tell the factory worker to labor longer, the sick employee to prove he is not lying, the pensioner to retire later, and the family to surrender Sunday, while the people responsible for the disaster remain comfortably protected by the state.

Germany cannot work its way out of political stupidity by operating seven days a week. Until Berlin restores affordable energy, cuts taxes, slashes regulation, permits capital formation, and stops subordinating the national economy to every ideological order issued by Brussels, additional working hours will merely produce additional misery. The politicians burned down the engine of Europe and are now blaming the passengers because they refuse to push the wreckage on Sunday. That is not economic reform. It is the organized transfer of suffering from those who made the decisions to those who were forced to live with them.

Categories