QUESTION: Marty there are a lot of people who seem to be trying to create a panic. Some are claiming the stock market will plunge by 50%. Others are saying nothing will survive other than gold. It seems like none of these people have any sense of what is really unfolding. They were saying the same thing for different reasons before the banking crisis. Can you offer any historical perspective?
Thank you. You seem to be the only real source these days.
Pete
ANSWER: The Bank Holiday took place the first week of March 1933. It began with governors closing down the banks in their states. Once one began, like COVID rules, they quickly jumped on the bandwagon. As reported by March 4th, 1933, some 41 states had already declared a banking holiday. Back then, the president took office in March – not January. Thus, Roosevelt was sworn in on March 4th, 1933. As the new president, FDR delivered what is arguably his best-known speech.
“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”
The following day, Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday on March 5th, 1933. Then Congress responded by passing the Emergency Banking Actof 1933 on March 9th, 1933. This action was combined with the Federal Reserve’s commitment to supply unlimited amounts of currency to reopened banks. Back then, they effectively created a de facto 100% deposit insurance and this was before the FDIC was created.
However, what the history books have omitted because it revealed the real reason for the major banking crisis, was the confiscation of gold precisely as Germany did in December 1922 seizing 10% of all assets which unleashed hyperinflation in 1923.
In Herbert Hoover’s memoirs (1951), he documents the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) played a very dirty game of politics. There were rumors that FDR would confiscate gold in 1932 BEFORE the election. These rumors spread and people ran to banks to withdraw their funds. The night before the election in 1932, FDR denied that he would do such a thing. After FDR won the election, the real bank panic began. FDR would not take office until March 1933.
The run on banks began as the Great Depression started. In 1929 alone, 659 banks closed their doors due to mismanagement and speculation. Ironically, to save money on paper, it was also in 1929 when the currency was reduced in size to save money. This time, they want to move to digital and save 100% on printing money. Here in 2023, the failures are due to the WOKE agenda which has deprived the banks of risk management rather than speculation.
However, as the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis hit, the number of bank failures skyrocketed. Goldman Sacks and others were selling foreign bonds to Americans in small denominations., As Europe began to default, US banks holding foreign debt and individuals in need of cash led to a banking panic for external reasons. Here is a chart showing the listing of bonds on the NYSE. We can easily see the collapse in the bond market thanks to the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis.
By 1932, an additional 5,102 banks went out of business. Families lost their life savings overnight. Thirty-eight states had adopted restrictions on withdrawals in an effort to forestall the panic. By March 4th, 41 states had declared a bank holiday shutting down banks. Bank failures increased in 1933, and Franklin Roosevelt deemed remedying these failing financial institutions his first priority after being inaugurated.
However, it was actually the election of FDR that started the banking crisis post-1931. Hoover pleaded with FDR to please come out and address the gold confiscation rumors. People had been hoarding their gold coins fearing the rumored confiscation. Despite Hoover’s plea for FDR to come out and deny the rumors after the election, he remained silent. Given FDR’s manipulation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbor which he appeared to instigate with sanctions confiscating Japanese assets in the USA, denying the sale of any energy to Japan, and then threatening to use the fleet to block them from buying fuel from anywhere else, They Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. There were Senate investigations afterward about FDR’s role because the US had already broken the Japanese code and knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He did that to force the US into World War II.
It was in his character to remain silent and create the worst banking crisis in history before he was sworn in as president. FDR was a radical socialist and many viewed that he admired Lenin. If it were not for Mr. Jones exposing the truth behind Stalin, even the corrupt New York Times journalist promoting Stalinism was meeting with FDR. The run on the banks became massive when FDR won the election on November 8th, 1932. FDR allowed the banking system to implode with people rushing to withdraw the money in gold coins.
At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039 ordering the suspension of all banking transactions, effective immediately. Roosevelt had taken the oath of office only thirty-six hours earlier.
The terms of the presidential proclamation specified:
[N]o such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.
For an entire week, Americans would not have access to banks or banking services. They could not withdraw or transfer their money, nor could they make deposits. The entire economy ran simply on cash in your pocket.
While the first phase of the banking crisis unfolded after 1929 due to speculation losses (hence Glass–Steagall Act), then the second phase was the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis, it was the third phase with the election of FDR that led to thousands of banks failing as there was a mad rush to withdraw your gold coin. But a new round of problems that began in early 1933 placed a severe strain on New York banks, many of which held balances for banks in other parts of the country. About 4,000 banks failed during this period alone bringing the total to over 9,000.
Much to everyone’s relief, when the institutions that could reopen for business on March 13th, 1933 saw depositors standing in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks. Within two weeks, Americans had redeposited more than half of the currency that they had withdrawn post-FDR’s election on November 8th, 1932. This would prove to be a sneaky trick of FDR to get people to redeposit all the gold coins they had withdrawn – as we are about to explore.
The stock market was also ordered closed when FDR came to power. With the cleverness of a real con artist operating a Ponzi Scheme to gain the confidence of the people, FDR needed the gold coin to be deposited for Phase 4 of the banking crisis. On March 15th, 1933, (The Ides of March), the stock market was allowed to reopen. On the first day of trading, the New York Stock Exchange recorded the largest one-day percentage price increase ever.
The week before the closure, the Dow Jones Industrials fell to 49.68. The week following the closure, the Dow rallied to 64.56 – a percentage gain of virtually 30% over the banking holiday. The shorts who were better on the collapse of the market once it reopened were devastated. It was a major short-covering rally.
With the benefit of hindsight, the nationwide Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, ended the bank runs that had plagued the Great Depression, but it also set the stage for the confiscation of gold. What you have to understand is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) actions in 1933 were not directed simply at gold. He was embarking on what he called the New Deal, which was a Marxist Agenda that was very popular at the time. His New Deal would end austerity, whereby they were maintaining a balanced budget in the belief that they needed to inspire confidence in the currency.
It was this balanced budget philosophy that also inspired John Maynard Keynes who argued that in times of economic distress when the demand has collapsed, that is when the state needs to run a deficit and increase the money supply. There was a simultaneous international flight of capital from Europe to the United States in the face of European sovereign debt defaults. That capital flight lasted for nearly two years until FDR won the election in 1932. There was much concern that Roosevelt would do what Germany did in 1922 in confiscating assets. That was the rumor about the possible confiscation of gold.
Milton Friedman criticized the Fed because the capital flows poured into the US but they refused to monetize it. We can see that as Europe defaulted on its debts in 1931, the capital rushed head-first into the dollar. Then we see that the dollar peaked in November 1932 with the election of FDR fearing that would weaken the dollar and exploit the economy. All this gold came to the USA pushing the dollar higher, but the Fed refused to monetize it, was Milton’s criticism. The backing of gold behind the dollar doubled in supply between 1929 and 1931.
So, you must separate gold and the devaluation of the dollar to comprehend what the issue was all about. FDR could have simply abandoned the gold standard, as did Britain, and not confiscated gold. However, that would have also been sufficient to end austerity. But the bankers would have profited and sold the gold overseas at higher prices. Roosevelt in his confiscation of gold was intended to deprive the private sector of profiting from his devaluation of the dollar which was rising the price of gold from $20 to $35. You must keep in mind that he even degraded Pierre du Pont (1870-1954) and called him the “Merchant of Death” because he produced arms for World War I and made a profit off of that war demand. Many saw Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class.
The confiscation of the gold was for two reasons. First, FDR was changing the monetary system from one where there was no distinction domestically from internationally to a two-tier system. Gold would freely circulate without restriction only internationally. Therefore, the confiscation of gold was altering the monetary system moving to a two-tier monetary system with gold only used in international transactions.
Consequently, FDR confiscated gold to move to a two-tier system and to deprive Americans of any profit from his devaluation. What FDR then did was confiscate gold from all institutions ordering them to turn over whatever they had. Ironically, this move was intended to target bankers rather than the public. FDR did not have people knocking on every door demanding all their gold. That is why there are plenty of US gold coins that have survived. If individuals possessed them rather than an institution, then they kept what they owned
Therefore, Roosevelt was able to seize whatever gold existed in banks. He declared all contracts void that had gold provisions for payment. It was in Perry v. United States – 294 U.S. 330 (1935) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by virtue of its power to deal with gold coin as a medium of exchange, was authorized to prohibit its export and limit its use in foreign exchange. Hence, the restraint thus imposed upon holders of gold coins was incidental to their ownership of it, and gave them no cause of action. id/P. 294 U. S. 356.
The Supreme Court held that it could not say that the exercise of this power by Congress was arbitrary or capricious. id/P. 294 U. S. 356. They held that even if the Government’s repudiation of the gold clause in the government bonds was unconstitutional, it did not entitle the plaintiff to recover more than the loss he has actually suffered, and of which he may rightfully complain. id/P. 294 U. S. 354. Therefore, the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, held:
“insofar as it undertakes to nullify such gold clauses in obligations of the United States and provides that such obligations shall be discharged by payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts, is unconstitutional.” id/P. 294 U. S. 349.
Yet, swapping gold for dollars created no loss that was cognizable even though the taking of gold was unconstitutional. Clearly, the Supreme Court did not consider the loss in terms of foreign exchange. The Court reasoned:
“Plaintiff has not attempted to show that, in relation to buying power, he has sustained any loss; on the contrary, in view of the adjustment of the internal economy to the single measure of value as established by the legislation of the Congress, and the universal availability and use throughout the country of the legal tender currency in meeting all engagements, the payment to the plaintiff of the amount which he demands would appear to constitute not a recoupment of loss in any proper sense, but an unjustified enrichment.”
In my understanding of the law, those who argued before the Court made purely a domestic argument. A dollar was still a dollar in domestic terms so there was no cognizable loss and the Court did not reach the constitutional question. Had they argued that their loss was with respect to some debt owed in British pounds, they there was a loss. Purely domestically, the only loss would have been to inflation and the Court would never rule against the government on such an issue.
All of that said, there does not appear to be any historical precedent for the stock market to collapse by 50%, all tangible assets to turn to dust, and only gold will survive given a banking crisis where Biden and Yellen sit on each other’s hands and do nothing. Trust me. Every major Democratic donor will be screaming. And as for those claiming the Fed will reverse its position, say inflation is suddenly no longer a problem, and monetize everything in sight, this is even too big for the Fed. have to create QE and absorb all the debt, there to things have changed. If the Fed does that, it will also lose all credibility. It squarely understands that inflation comes from handing Ukraine a black check to the most corrupt government in the world. The Fed raised rates yesterday for it cannot back down. It is choreographing the best it can but the bankers do not listen.
If they simply stand behind all the deposits, then there will be no panic. That is what they did in 1933 and the market rallied in confidence thereafter.
COMMENT: Marty, it’s refreshing to have Socrates that is totally unbiased. It projected continued rising rates into next year and the Fed just proved its point. It is not backing down.
Thank you. Socrates is very enlightening.
GS
ANSWER: I know there were a lot of talks that surely the Fed had to lower rates and start QE all over again. Most of those sorts of comments have no real experience in markets. They just mouth a lot of hot air. Perhaps instead of putting masks on cows, we should do that on the shills. The Federal Reserve had no choice but to raise interest rates although it was just by a quarter point. Not to do so and the Fed would lose all credibility and the market would then not take them seriously.
You MUST understand that this crisis has unfolded because too many banks were wrapped up in WOKE culture and hired people who were UNQUALIFIED to run risk management. Some were more excited about cross-dressing as a woman and winning the Rainbow award in banking than actually protecting the bank from the risk of rising interest rates.
In a statement released at the conclusion of the meeting, Fed officials acknowledged that recent financial market turmoil is weighing on inflation and the economy, though they expressed confidence in the overall system. “The US banking system is sound and resilient.” They had no choice but to make this statement.
“Recent developments are likely to result in tighter credit conditions for households and businesses and to weigh on economic activity, hiring and inflation. The extent of these effects is uncertain.”
The Fed is saying that their rise in rates will in fact reduce inflation and economic activity. The banks have this yield curve risk and that is different from the 2007-2009 crisis where the debt was based on fraud. Here, the debt is US Treasuries so they are not going bankrupt from that aspect, but it is a liquidity crisis.
If these people who scream loudly but know nothing really about finance keep up the nonsense, they will only add to the uncertainly. This inflation is accelerating thanks to the war.
As it appears the US is marching toward war, what is notable this time, unlike what happened in the run-up to US participation in WW2, was the sense of isolationism in this country. Roosevelt was clearly walking a fine line, knowing there was no stomach for US involvement in Europe. US involvement in WW1 also started out similarly with many in the US, in particular those of Irish descent who opposed helping the British in their battle in Europe. Wilson, another Democrat, also walked the straight and narrow, professing neutrality which history shows was a lie. Later, his 14 points, the forerunner to an imposed peace on Germany, would backfire. The League of Nations would die off.
But today, unlike the prior two world wars, both democrats and republicans appear to embrace an escalation in conflict. And with an old, decrepit mannequin in the WH, it looks like there’s nothing stopping this push toward war. Republicans especially are a total disgrace. They stabbed Trump in the back repeatedly or let him twist in the wind for 4 years and for the first two when they were the majority party…did little to show their one chance to lead. Trump did more for peace than any president since Kennedy. Trump at least tried to engage Xie, met with the North Korean leader and focused more on building up the US domestic economy. He tore up US participation in these climate pacts. He focused on building the wall to stem the flow of illegals crossing the border. Her met with the Mexican president and forced his counterpart to accept an arrangement that kept illegals inside Mexico pending and petitions later to the US government for entry based on their applications. And for all this, he was the target for a fraud based on collusion to get elected with Russian help. Which turned out to be baseless. Later, he was implicated in the Jan 6 insurrection…courtesy of both parties. Which itself was a total fabrication.
Both Dems and R’s are now marching lockstep toward war. It’s no wonder public opinion toward the government is sinking to all-time lows. In both parties. Both of which will be swept away in the years ahead for betraying this country on so many levels.
MS
REPLY: Hillary, started this whole mess by launching the fake dossier and blaming Putin for interring in the election. She managed to convince 70% of Democrats that Russia was the enemy. RussiaGate, despite being discredited, set in motion this hatred for Russia. Still, 65% of Americans support Ukraine when in fact what they are doing is relying on a border drawn by Kruschev for administrative purposes and demanding that the Donbas is their territory when NEVER for even a single day have Ukrainian people ever been the majority in that region. This is a land grab and nothing more that is engulfing the entire world all because our idiot politicians want to destroy the world economy so they can blame it on war and default on all the debt.
I get hate mail and death threats from Ukrainian Nazis pretty regularly now. This only shows that we are historically on the wrong side. In WWII, we fought against the Nazo movement. This time, we support ethnic cleansing.
Americans fled here to escape the political chaos and warmongering in Europe. So when WWI and WWII took place, the American people saw no reason to go support a political movement that they had fled. Indeed, FDR’ solemn campaign promise was no boys would be sent to fight in a foreign war. That is why he did everything possible to get Japan to attack Pearl Harbor for that was the ONLY way to overcome the anti-war position of Americans. They have done the same to get Russia to act to protect the Donbas from the Ukrainians who began the civil war.
FDR repeated that solemn promise in Boston which was predominantly Irish. They refused to defend Britain openly recalling what the English did to the Irish. That was why FDR needed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Today, they needed Russia to launch its special operation which was absolutely legal under the United Nations Rules for he was protecting the Donbas, not seeking to conquer Ukraine.
All of those memories of past wars are long gone. Today, we cheer on war because we think it will be like watching Iraq on CNN after nightly dinner. As they say:
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
Hungary has been in the crosshairs of the Biden/Obama administration ever since Prime Minister Viktor Orban refused to align with the WEF Western Democracies in their quest for regime change in Russia. As the NATO led western alliance assembled to use Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban would not join.
In early April 2022, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was overwhelmingly reelected {LINK}, despite the massive efforts against him by the European Union, western and euro-centric multinational globalists. As a result of the victory, Brussels was furious at the Hungarian people. Associated Press – […] “Orban — a fierce critic of immigration, LGBTQ rights and “EU bureaucrats” — has garnered the admiration of right-wing nationalists across Europe and North America.” (link)
Within the statements reported from his 2022 victory speech, Prime Minister Orban warned citizens of the NATO and western allied countries about the manipulation of Ukraine and how he views the Zelenskyy regime: […] “while speaking to supporters on Sunday, Orban singled out Zelenskyy as part of the “overwhelming force” that he said his party had struggled against in the election — “the left at home, the international left, the Brussels bureaucrats, the Soros empire with all its money, the international mainstream media, and in the end, even the Ukrainian president.” (link)
This put Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the crosshairs of the western alliance, specifically the EU and U.S. bureaucrats who use their power, position and intelligence apparatus to manipulate foreign nations. A year later and now we see USAID Administrator Samantha Power in Hungary openly discussing her seeding of the NGO’s and political activist systems in order to generate yet another color revolution. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:
Samantha Power, the wife of Cass Sunstein, is well known as the Obama/Biden administration’s advance operative who uses her position in U.S. government to influence activism in targeted nations. Hungary is now her target.
Why is eliminating Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban now the goal of the Biden administration. Well, a reminder:
The World Economic Forum and NATO/Western Alliance cannot permit a nation to stand on principles of nationalism. Allowing a point of contrast that would showcase the weakness of globalism and multiculturalism is something the western control system just cannot permit.
As a result, Samantha Power, the U.S. State Dept (USAID) and the CIA, are collectively running an operation in Hungary, seeding the groundwork for the next color revolution.
They don’t even try to hide this stuff anymore.
Just keep watching…. More will become visible, and our conversation will now have context for what comes next.
[FWIW, I always suspected S Power of being a CIA operative]
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundanc
It’s not just random data points. It is an alignment of multiple datapoints, appearing at random intervals, that all align in one very specific direction.
The key is being able to spot them. WATCH (1 min):
[BACKGROUND] … “This is where the RGA looks to have been recruited for a larger role in 2024 than was deployed in 2016. Keep an eye on Republican governors and how they position their advocacy and endorsements.” {GO DEEP}
An ideological alignment of individual people, institutions and organizations working in concert toward a common goal is not a conspiracy. Once the objective of the common interest is identified, all benefactory components operate individually. What becomes visible is the similarity of the actions.
This is where we see patterns and common actions taken toward a common goal. This reality is the context to understand how the political dynamic is constructed in opposition to Donald Trump, and more specifically how the America First policy platform of Presidential candidate Donald Trump is viewed as a common threat.
Individuals, institutions, government ‘stakeholders’, and generally all status-quo interests stand in opposition, as reflected in the historic Niccolò Machiavelli quote:
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
When the new system is constructed to the benefit of the many yet disrupts the status of the few (the proverbial elite) who benefit from retention of the old, those in the at-risk minority must pretend not to know things. Additionally, through passive aggressive undermining that same elite group frame their opposition to provide themselves plausible deniability.
It is in this political mix of eclectic interests where a person needs an intellectual filtration system, tuned to the granular nuances, in order to make sense of the landscape and see the big picture.
Posted Originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
If you accept the likelihood of the 2024 Wall Street Republican roadmap being the defining difference between 2016 and 2024, then you can easily see how the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA), the state level system where the policy of GOP governors are purchased by big money, will be the driving influence. It is into this mixed manipulation where New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu becomes of strategic value.
Someone has to try and maintain the narrative of “free markets” as a Republican priority, enter Chris Sununu. Readers here and middle-class workers of America have decades of experience seeing exactly what the outcome of Republican “free market” capitalism creates. Selling out the U.S. worker and manufacturing base in favor of globalism, multinational corporate exploitation and profits at any cost are the result. In modern economic reality, there is no such thing as a “free market,” there are only controlled markets {GO DEEP}.
Pushing the conservative ‘free market’ narrative, the corporate controlled Chris Sununu appears on Face the Nation to gaslight the base republican voter with old catchphrases that used to work; they no longer do. People can now see through the rustbelt prism and identify the destruction created by the Wall Street funded UniParty apparatus. This is what 2024 presidential candidate Chris Sununu is trying to lie about. However, no republican candidate is an economic nationalist, except President Donald Trump. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We’re joined now by the Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu. And it’s good to have you here…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU (R-New Hampshire): Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … in person.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Great to be here. Better here than the rest of Washington, because this whole town gives me the — it gives me the chills sometimes.
(LAUGHTER)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you might need to go get over that if you’re going to run for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as, apparently, you are considering doing.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, look, a lot of opportunity to change things, right?
I think New Hampshire has this awesome model of live free or die, limited government, local control, individual responsibility, really putting the voters first, send them some money, which is nice, but send them the regulatory authority too.
So a little decentralizing out of Washington and maybe a little better attitude would be — would be a good thing for America.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What’s the proactive reason you want to be president, not something that President Biden is doing wrong…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … but something you want to achieve?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, which is the right question you’re asking, by the way, because I — it drives me crazy when Republicans talk in an echo chamber about how bad the president is, and Democrats.
We got the memo, as Republicans. You got to be for something. What I’m trying to do is kind of show that New Hampshire model, show the opportunity to get stuff done. I have had Republicans in my legislature. I have Democrats in my legislature. I always get my conservative agendas done.
We always cut taxes. We always balance a budget. And I can explain to folks in Washington what a balanced budget actually means. So, there are paths. And I think America is looking for results. We need results-driven leadership, not just leadership that…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like what?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Look, whether it’s cutting taxes, being pro- business, the regulatory reform, the immigration stuff that we were told was going to happen in 2017 and 2018 as Republicans, and it didn’t.
We were told health care reform would happen. It didn’t. We were told we were going to secure the border, and we didn’t. So, there’s all this great opportunity that has a domino effect. They’re not just things to check off a list, but those things have huge impacts on the American economy and, most importantly, American families, right?
They just want flexibility to do what they do. And, frankly, they’re tired of the nonsense in D.C. They’re tired of — of extreme candidates. They’re tired of gridlock. They want somebody to come to the table. And it could be myself. It could be other governors. It could — but it has to be leadership with proven results.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I have been in the private sector as an engineer and a business leader. I have been in the public sector. You got to be able to deliver.
And you got to, hopefully, be inspirational and hopeful, as opposed to all this negativity you see.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you still have to get the Congress to work with you to do that very long laundry list of things you just read off to us.
So, when you were here in November, you told us that President Biden would not run for president, in your estimation. You just saw him up close for the past few days.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that still what you believe?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, I know other people will definitely run. They’re going to get in the race.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Democrats, you believe, will challenge him?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, absolutely, yes, yes, because…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you say that? Did someone tell you that in the last few days?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, Joe Biden has tried to move the first-in-the- nation primary from New Hampshire, right? But we’re going to — we’re going first, whether the president likes it or not.
And so that’s going to be a huge opportunity for anybody who wants to step up and challenge him. And if you look at the polls across the country, the average Democrat says, yes, thanks for your service on one term, but let’s keep it to one term, President Biden.
And I just don’t believe the Democrat left-wing elite is going to sit on the sidelines, knowing you could come to New Hampshire, get all the earned media, all the attention…
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … without a whole lot of money, all that political momentum. He’s opened up his political flank, so to say, to give someone else a huge opportunity to charge right through and take that nomination from him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll see if your — if your projection plays out.
You’ve been talking about trying to sort of remind the party that Republicans are about limited government.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said recently: “Republicans are almost trying to outdo Democrats at their own game of being big government and having a solution and a say on everything.”
Who were you thinking of when you say that?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, there’s a lot — look, I think there’s a lot of leadership out there that forget — that forgets.
At heart, I’m a principled free market conservative. Let the markets decide. So there’s no individual, per se, but there’s a lot of leadership that says, you know what, when we’re not getting that result out of a private business or locality, we’ll just impose from the top down our conservative will.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re not talking…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … about the Florida governor and Disney, for example, are you?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, that’s a bad example. Yes, that’s — that’s an example, one of the many examples you see out there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ron DeSantis may be running for president as well.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure. Yes.
Yes, look, Ron’s a very good governor. He is. But I’m just trying to remind folks what we are at our core. And if we’re trying to beat the Democrats at being big government authoritarians, remember what’s going to happen. Eventually, they’ll have power in a state or in a position, and then they’ll start penalizing conservative businesses and conservative nonprofits and conservative ideas.
That is the worst precedent in the world. That’s exactly what the founding fathers tried not to — tried to avoid. And so I’m trying to remind my conservative friends about federalism, free markets, and being for the voter first, being for the individual.
Do I like what every private business says? No, I hate this woke cancel culture. But it’s a cultural…
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does that mean to you then?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Woke cancel culture?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, it’s — it’s — look, it’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you’re not a culture warrior, really.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, no, no. No, but it’s there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does woke cult — what does that mean in your platform?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: It’s the — it’s the divisiveness — divisiveness we see not just in our schools, but in our communities, where it is me vs. you, whereas, if you are not adhering to my ideals, then I’m going to cancel you out.
It is us vs. them. It is this binary where everything’s a war. That’s a cultural problem we have to fix in America. And it starts with good leadership, good messaging, more hopeful and optimistic. But government never solves a cultural problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Well…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: We can lead on it, but we never solve it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Interesting idea, but you are contradicted by the Republican governor of Arkansas, who gave the response for your party after the State of the Union, who embraced culture war.
She says America’s in one.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, we are.
MARGARET BRENNAN: She says it’s been waged by the left wing, “a woke mob that can’t even tell you what a woman is.”
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: That’s absolutely right. And that’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, are you going to engage on things like this, like — like Sanders and DeSantis has in terms of issues on gender and issues of race?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: There should be absolute leadership on that about what that’s about.
And this idea that you have to — you know, we have forced language, that we have forced ideas on our kids, that we’re going to force anything…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are going to be a culture warrior?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, we have to talk about that, but it isn’t the government’s role to solve it.
The government is not here to solve your problems. It’s not. The government is here to include as many…
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, governors shouldn’t be actually talking and engaging and telling school boards and doing things like this or trying to pass laws like they are?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I don’t think governors should be trying to pass laws to subvert the will of the voters that know better than us.
Voters are — know more than I do. The voters on that school board know, the voters in those towns know a lot more. And if — that’s the free market of politics. If they don’t like the school board, they get — they go to a town meeting, they fire them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are — you call yourself a pro-choice Republican.
You still have to win in a Republican primary.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there room for someone who calls himself a pro-choice Republican?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, yes, look, that issue is — look, that issue is going to change three different ways now that Dobbs has happened, right? States can decide what they want to do, right?
So, I think the definition of pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion are — are going to be very different, because if you’re a pro-life Republican, that’s fine. That’s — as a governor, you can do that. You can ban it in your state, and you can stay — stand behind those ideals. And maybe that’s exactly what your state wants. No problem.
I’m a pro-choice Republican in a very pro-choice state. But, at the end of the day, you’re going to have the pro-lifer over here…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: .. pro-abortion over here, and then the rest of us are, well, we have a 24-week ban, and you have a 22-week…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … and an 18-week ban.
So, the rest of us are kind of in this spectrum of debating about weeks. So that the whole conversation is going to change.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to talk about some of these issues in-depth with you in a moment, so stay with us, Governor.
And we’re going to bring in a panel of bipartisan governors with us.
Positive debate on solutions and constructive criticism of approach is always appropriate for our elected officials; heck, that is the essence of our discussion. However, recently there have been many critics of President Trump; many people only just now understanding the problem and proclaiming that President Trump specifically did not do enough to block, impede, stop and counteract the globalist forces that were/are aligned against his effort to Make America Great Again.
Hindsight is 20/20, but there are people who proclaim that Donald J Trump should have been more wise in his counsel; more selective in his cabinet; more forceful in his confrontation of corporate globalists. Let me be clear….
I will never join that crew of Trump critics because I have understood his adversary for decades. CTH did not just come around to the understanding of the enemy. CTH has been outlining the scope of the enemy, the scale of the specific war and the financial and economic power of the opposition for over a decade. We understand the totality of the effort it will take to stop decades of willful blindness amid the American people. We also see with clear eyes exactly what they are doing now, even with President Trump forcefully removed from office, to destroy the threat he still represents.
Donald J Trump was/is a walking red-pill; a “touchstone”: a visible, empirical test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of anything political. I have been deep enough into the network of the Deep State to understand the scale and scope of this enemy. To think that President Trump alone could carry the burden of correcting four decades of severe corruption of all things political, without simultaneously considering the scale of the financial opposition, is naive in the extreme.
♦ POTUS Trump was disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. He was fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our American interests, our MAGAnomic position, was/is essentially zero-sum. His DC and Wall-Street aligned opposition (writ large) needed to repel and retain the status-quo. They desperately wanted him removed so they could return to full economic control over the U.S, because it is the foundation of their power.
You want to criticize him for fighting harder against those interests than any single man has ever done before him? If so, do it without me.
I am thankful for the awakening Donald J Trump has provided.
I am thankful now for the opportunity to fight with people who finally understand the scale of our opposition.
Without Donald J Trump these entities would still be operating in the shadows. With Donald J Trump we can clearly see who the real enemy is.
In these economic endeavors President Trump was disrupting decades of financial schemes established to use the U.S. as a host for their endeavors. President Trump was confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host (USA) ie YOU. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; everything else is chaff and countermeasures.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the middle class has struggled, and exactly why the wealth gap exploded in the past 30 years.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
It doesn’t.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity.
Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics. Collectively known as “The Big Club”.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump understood what had taken place. He used economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to retain and protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests and raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA renegotiated; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel and aluminum industries; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1:♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead.
In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A multinational corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use Food Stamps, EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
It is ironic when we discuss corporate financial payments to government officials in foreign countries we call them corrupt. However, in the United States we call it lobbying, the process is exactly the same.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upset the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focused exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations, and the political institutions they pay for, were/are aligned against President Trump; and they will never relent in their need to see the risk he/we represents destroyed.
I will never relent in my support for anyone who fights this enemy.
I will align with and encourage anyone who joins this fight.
If you are looking for criticism against the only person I have ever witnessed who actually fought our correct enemy, look elsewhere.
The Federal Reserve raised the benchmark by 25 bps, as expected. The Fed fully understands that the manipulation of the CPI is a necessary aspect both for containing government benefits and understating inflation also results in high tax revenues. The market loves hope, and as a result, they focused on the warning that we’ll be in restrictive territory for just a bit longer. Most still believe that there will be a slowdown in inflation just ahead.
The Fed’s cautionary commentary saying that the “disinflation process” has started triggered shares to jump ending up 1%. This shows how insane the analysis had become that they cheer a recession and think that lower interest rates are bullish for the stock market. Obviously, they just listen to the talking heads on TV and have never bothered to look at reality. When interest rates decline, so has the stock market. Interest rates rose for the entire Trump Rally, and they crashed during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. For the life of me, I just shake my head when the talking heads cheer lower rates and spread doom and gloom with higher rates.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 30, 2023 | Sundance
This is a topic we have covered extensively, and it is great to see Tucker Carlson questioning the sudden alignment of various elements that are creating a very real food insecurity problem.
The #1 factor in the shortage of food production is the newly emboldened ‘western energy policy‘ and the impact energy has on everything from field (fertilizer) to fork (distribution). Other factors include government policy that blocks food development (Dutch, Irish and Sri Lanka Farmers), a sudden uptick in food facilities having major fires and damage, and a series of issues with the feed that goes into the production of proteins.
This is all happening as the advancement of insects as a more “sustainable” protein replacement is being advanced by the same western governments. However, if you happen to notice that all of the issues travel in the same direction, you are a conspiracy theorist, or something. WATCH:
We have been watching the predictable outcomes surrounding the western government shift to change energy policy for almost two years. Approximately a year ago we first said, “the absence of food will change things.”
As energy resources like natural gas were curtailed the resulting price increase and subsequent shortage of fertilizer was discussed in great detail well in advance.
Now, we are starting to see exactly what those warning voices were talking about.
An interesting article in ZeroHedge Saturday [SEE HERE] draws attention to how the media can no longer try to ignore the created global food crisis.
ZeroHedge – People on the other side of the planet are dropping dead from starvation right now, but most people don’t even realize that this is happening. Unfortunately, most people just assume that everything is fine and dandy. If you are one of those people that believe that everything is just wonderful, I would encourage you to pay close attention to the details that I am about to share with you. Global hunger is rapidly spreading, and that is because global food supplies have been getting tighter and tighter.
If current trends continue, we could potentially be facing a nightmare scenario before this calendar year is over. (read more)
The article then goes on to detail the issues and food shortages in Pakistan, India and the entire African continent. Factually, according to media reports on the region, the worst food crisis in history is happening – yet most U.S. and European Union media are avoiding it. The famine is happening in almost complete western silence.
Keep in mind, none of this is unexpected. In fact, the G7 countries discussed the pending problem in mid 2022, yet no one took any steps to avoid it.
Vladimir Putin’s military action against eastern Ukraine had nothing to do with the severe food shortages and inflation in Sri Lanka {link}. Nor did Russia have any influence over the Dutch government trying to stop food production {link}. Additionally, Putin had no control over Justin Trudeau’s decision to limit harvest yields by blocking the use of nitrogen-based fertilizer {link}. More importantly, it was not Vladimir Putin who forced all the western politicians to sign up for a new ‘climate friendly’ energy program that is destroying the ability of western farms to generate higher yield crops.
You do not need to be a farmer to understand that nitrogen/phosphorus-based industrial fertilizer has been the reason why farm yields have generated massive amounts of food on a global basis. The United States, Canada, the U.K. and places like the Netherlands have massively increased their ability to generate food for export, in large part due to the success of improved fertilizer and crop saving modern pesticides. Take those farming advancements away under the guise of climate change and you get Sri Lanka, Pakistan and now the African Continent.
Those western climate and energy policies create downstream consequences. The decision to chase a new global energy policy under the name “Build Back Better,” in combination with short-sighted EU sanctions against Russia, and you get food shortages.
It was not Vladimir Putin who told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz their proactive recommendation to switch from crop-based biofuels to human food would be blocked. That G7 decision was made by Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden. {link} Even more significantly, it was not Russia who threatened the multinational energy companies about investing in Africa for expanded natural gas supplies for their fertilizer needs. That threat came from the same western government alliance, per their instructions from the World Economic Forum group {link}.
It was predictable {JUNE 21st} {June 30th} and {July 6th} that western government leaders would seek to avoid responsibility for the food crisis they created, and throughout the latter part of 2022 we saw western media trying, desperately, to frame Russia for global food shortages in order to protect western politicians.
I said this in July of last year and as the consequences now surface it is even more critical to understand.
Joe Biden, NATO, the G7, the European Union, the World Bank, USAID, and every western leader in the United States and Europe stated in early and mid 2022 there will be food shortages in 2023.
They did not say there might be shortages; their statements were emphatic, there will be shortages.
Accept this basic cornerstone. Then ask why not a single proactive step has been taken by any of the aforementioned institutions or governments to alleviate what they declare is a certainty. Why?
Simple question, “why?”
If all of the western nations, non-govt organizations and heads of state, are aware of a coming food crisis, why is there no proactive response?
It is a question that even the most hardcore leftists will not answer, because there is only one answer. No action is being taken because they do not want to take action. No effort to avoid the crisis is being done, because they do not want the crisis avoided.
Peel all the layers of obfuscation and causation away, and what we find is the epicenter of the food shortage is directly the result of the Build Back Better agenda. A post-pandemic western government deliberate decision to radically change global energy development. In succinct terms, the climate change agenda.
However, regardless of how you feel about the validity of “climate change,” the cause of diminished food supplies is purposeful. It is not climate change causing food shortages. It is the purposeful action taken under the guise of mitigating climate change that is causing the shortage of food.
The collective Build Back Better energy policy of western governments’ is the reason for massive increases in energy costs, massive oil price jumps, gasoline price increases, significant increases in chemical costs, increases in diesel fuel costs, shortages of fertilizer created using natural gas, and the end result is lower crop yields, higher farming costs and eventually, food shortages. They knew this.
All of the organizations and government who have been decrying the future shortage of food, know it is the radical shift in energy resource development that is creating the crisis. This acceptance of reality begins the framework to understand just how entrenched and committed these western leaders are toward their beloved climate change agenda.
We are only just now beginning to see the first aspects of the food shortage. However, once the issue becomes unavoidable the western leaders will not and cannot accept the blame for what they have done. They will blame-cast, excuse and justify what is surfacing.
Food shortages will be blamed on the Ukraine conflict, Russian aggression, climate change and any various iteration of justification that does not identify the true cause, their energy ideology.
I’m not so sure that people fully understand what the entire system of western government would be willing to do to avoid being blamed for avoidable death on a potential scale that is quite alarming. All of the western leaders, institutions and governments are on the same boat. They are all in this together.
(June 22, 2022) – (Reuters) – The European Union is divided on how to help poorer nations fight a growing food crisis and address shortages of fertilizers caused by the war in Ukraine, with some fearing a plan to invest in plants in Africa would clash with EU green goals.
The need for food “clashes with EU green goals.”… Let that sink in.
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 