Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 11, 2022 | Sundance
Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake appears on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to discuss the insufferable and chaotic state of the Arizona election counting fiasco. {Direct Rumble Link}
Maricopa County remains the epicenter of the ridiculous exploits from election officials, including the intentional dragging out of the vote tabulation in an effort to support the Sunday Talk show narrative. However, that said, when the final ballots are counted, it’s almost certain that Kari Lake will stand victorious despite the shenanigans of the election officials; the remaining question is by what margin. WATCH:
.
Additionally in Nevada, Republican candidate Joe Lombardo has been declared the winner [data]. Republican Senate Candidate Adam Laxalt remains in the lead by 2,000 ballots/votes with 93% of the stuffing counted. Meanwhile in Colorado, as expected, Lauren Boebert has widened her lead with 95% of ballots (and votes), counted.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 11, 2022 | Sundance
They have proposed and refined so many of the carbon trading schemes, it becomes difficult to remember which iteration each new formula replaces. Heck, I’ve lost track of how many of the individual components of the larger plan are already in place. However, John Kerry has introduced the western elites at COP27 to the latest acceptable proposal surrounding coal fired energy.
Against the backdrop of sped-up Build Back Better urgency, this coal-based carbon trading platform is called the Energy Transition Accelerator (ETA).
When you stay elevated to the larger way the Energy Transition Accelerator works you can clearly see the transferring of wealth from your bank account to the global control mechanism that will eventually determine your energy allotment. The companies that provide energy are simply the collectors for the fees you will pay to the World Economic Forum income disbursement group.
(Reuters) – […] The scheme, known as the Energy Transition Accelerator (ETA), was launched at the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week by John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund.
[…] Voluntary carbon markets, in which companies get emissions credits in return for channeling cash to poor countries that cut their carbon output, have often been riddled with fraud and double-counting. Many critics think rich countries should just fork out the cash themselves to close coal plants – or tax fossil fuel companies to get the money. (read more)
There’s the system in a nutshell. Energy providers must purchase emission credits from the ‘carbon market’ (govt); in the U.S. likely the EPA as they do with RIN credits. The electricity provider puts the carbon purchase credit fee in your electricity bill.
The money generated from that credit purchase system is then delivered to the government who take a cut; then pass along the balance to the central climate control unit who take a cut; then forward the remaining balance to the third-world government who also take a cut; and then the remainder is used to develop clean energy systems; which returns to the starting point with the energy providers.
See how that works?
That’s the basic operational model of all the carbon-trading platforms.
Widget Corp (energy provider) is forced to purchase a credit. Widget Corp. get the fee for the credit from the customers (you). The fee is passed on to govt, then passed on to central control, then passed on to foreign govt, then passed on to Widget Corp. for building the new clean energy system.
Yes, it’s a Build Back Better circle.
The only way to avoid the Carbon-Trading Exchange is not to join the carbon trading system.
Well, that said, what does not joining the carbon trading system look like?
(Silk Road) – The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov has stated that ‘over a dozen’ countries have formally applied to join the BRICS grouping following the groups decision to allow new members earlier this year. The BRICS currently includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
It is not a free trade bloc, but members do coordinate on trade matters and have established a policy bank, the New Development Bank, (NDB) to coordinate infrastructure loans. That was set up in 2014 in order to provide alternative loan mechanisms from the IMF and World Bank structures, which the members had felt had become too US-centric.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was set up by China at about the same time for largely the same reasons and to offer alternative financing than that provided by the IMF and World Banks, which were felt to impose political reform policies designed to assist the United States in return for providing loans. Both the NDB and AIIB banks are Triple A rated and capitalised at US$100 billion. The NDB bank shares are held equally by each of the five members.
In total, the BRICS grouping as it currently stands accounts for over 40% of the global population and nearly a quarter of the world’s GDP. The GDP figure is expected to double to 50% of global GDP by 2030. Expanding BRICS will immediately accelerate that process.
Concerning a BRICS expansion, Lavrov stated that Algeria, Argentina, and Iran had all applied, while it is already known that Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt and Afghanistan are interested, along with Indonesia, which is expected to make a formal application to join at the upcoming G20 summit in Bali.
Other likely contenders for membership include Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Senegal, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. All had their Finance Ministers present at the BRICS Expansion dialogue meeting held in May. (more)
Can you see it now?
This is the global trade and finance system cleaving as a result of western government’s chasing climate change.
There will eventually be two systems of finance, banking, investment and energy use.
Can you see it now?
Right now, the ‘western’ team is not going to allow any ally to join the BRICS team without punishment.
It’s a battle for global wealth using energy development as the tool.
Last point. With this in mind, does the multinational opposition to President Trump carry a new “trillions at stake” context for you?
By Greg Chapman “The world has less than a decade to change course to avoid irreversible ecological catastrophe, the UN warned today.” The Guardian Nov 28 2007 “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra Introduction Global extinction due to global warming has been predicted more times than climate activist, Leo DiCaprio, has traveled by private jet. But where do these predictions come from? If you thought it was just calculated from the simple, well known relationship between CO2 and solar energy spectrum absorption, you would only expect to see about 0.5o C increase from pre-industrial temperatures as a result of CO2 doubling, due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship. Figure 1: Incremental warming effect of CO2 alone [1] The runaway 3-6o C and higher temperature increase model predictions depend on coupled feedbacks from many other factors, including water vapour (the most important greenhouse gas), albedo (the proportion of energy reflected from the surface – e.g. more/less ice or clouds, more/less reflection) and aerosols, just to mention a few, which theoretically may amplify the small incremental CO2 heating effect. Because of the complexity of these interrelationships, the only way to make predictions is with climate models because they can’t be directly calculated. The purpose of this article is to explain to the non-expert, how climate models work, rather than a focus on the issues underlying the actual climate science, since the models are the primary ‘evidence’ used by those claiming a climate crisis. The first problem, of course, is no model forecast is evidence of anything. It’s just a forecast, so it’s important to understand how the forecasts are made, the assumptions behind them and their reliability. How do Climate Models Work? In order to represent the earth in a computer model, a grid of cells is constructed from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere. Within each cell, the component properties, such as temperature, pressure, solids, liquids and vapour, are uniform. The size of the cells varies between models and within models. Ideally, they should be as small as possible as properties vary continuously in the real world, but the resolution is constrained by computing power. Typically, the cell area is around 100×100 km2 even though there is considerable atmospheric variation over such distances, requiring each of the physical properties within the cell to be averaged to a single value. This introduces an unavoidable error into the models even before they start to run. The number of cells in a model varies, but the typical order of magnitude is around 2 million. Figure 2: Typical grid used in climate models [2]
Once the grid has been constructed, the component properties of each these cells must be determined. There aren’t, of course, 2 million data stations in the atmosphere and ocean. The current number of data points is around 10,000 (ground weather stations, balloons and ocean buoys), plus we have satellite data since 1978, but historically the coverage is poor. As a result, when initialising a climate model starting 150 years ago, there is almost no data available for most of the land surface, poles and oceans, and nothing above the surface or in the ocean depths. This should be understood to be a major concern. Figure 3: Global weather stations circa 1885 [3]
Once initialised, the model goes through a series of timesteps. At each step, for each cell, the properties of the adjacent cells are compared. If one such cell is at a higher pressure, fluid will flow from that cell to the next. If it is at higher temperature, it warms the next cell (whilst cooling itself). This might cause ice to melt or water to evaporate, but evaporation has a cooling effect. If polar ice melts, there is less energy reflected that causes further heating. Aerosols in the cell can result in heating or cooling and an increase or decrease in precipitation, depending on the type. Increased precipitation can increase plant growth as does increased CO2. This will change the albedo of the surface as well as the humidity. Higher temperatures cause greater evaporation from oceans which cools the oceans and increases cloud cover. Climate models can’t model clouds due to the low resolution of the grid, and whether clouds increase surface temperature or reduce it, depends on the type of cloud. It’s complicated! Of course, this all happens in 3 dimensions and to every cell resulting in considerable feedback to be calculated at each timestep. The timesteps can be as short as half an hour. Remember, the terminator, the point at which day turns into night, travels across the earth’s surface at about 1700 km/hr at the equator, so even half hourly timesteps introduce further error into the calculation, but again, computing power is a constraint. While the changes in temperatures and pressures between cells are calculated according to the laws of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, many other changes aren’t calculated. They rely on parameterisation. For example, the albedo forcing varies from icecaps to Amazon jungle to Sahara desert to oceans to cloud cover and all the reflectivity types in between. These properties are just assigned and their impacts on other properties are determined from lookup tables, not calculated. Parameterisation is also used for cloud and aerosol impacts on temperature and precipitation. Any important factor that occurs on a subgrid scale, such as storms and ocean eddy currents must also be parameterised with an averaged impact used for the whole grid cell. Whilst the effects of these factors are based on observations, the parameterisation is far more a qualitative rather than a quantitative process, and often described by modelers themselves as an art, that introduces further error. Direct measurement of these effects and how they are coupled to other factors is extremely difficult and poorly understood. Within the atmosphere in particular, there can be sharp boundary layers that cause the models to crash. These sharp variations have to be smoothed. Energy transfers between atmosphere and ocean are also problematic. The most energetic heat transfers occur at subgrid scales that must be averaged over much larger areas. Cloud formation depends on processes at the millimeter level and are just impossible to model. Clouds can both warm as well as cool. Any warming increases evaporation (that cools the surface) resulting in an increase in cloud particulates. Aerosols also affect cloud formation at a micro level. All these effects must be averaged in the models. When the grid approximations are combined with every timestep, further errors are introduced and with half hour timesteps over 150 years, that’s over 2.6 million timesteps! Unfortunately, these errors aren’t self-correcting. Instead this numerical dispersion accumulates over the model run, but there is a technique that climate modelers use to overcome this, which I describe shortly. Figure 4: How grid cells interact with adjacent cells [4]
Model Initialisation After the construction of any type of computer model, there is an initalisation process whereby the model is checked to see whether the starting values in each of the cells are physically consistent with one another. For example, if you are modelling a bridge to see whether the design will withstand high winds and earthquakes, you make sure that before you impose any external forces onto the model structure other than gravity, that it meets all the expected stresses and strains of a static structure. Afterall, if the initial conditions of your model are incorrect, how can you rely on it to predict what will happen when external forces are imposed in the model? Fortunately, for most computer models, the properties of the components are quite well known and the initial condition is static, the only external force being gravity. If your bridge doesn’t stay up on initialisation, there is something seriously wrong with either your model or design! With climate models, we have two problems with initialisation. Firstly, as previously mentioned, we have very little data for time zero, whenever we chose that to be. Secondly, at time zero, the model is not in a static steady state as is the case for pretty much every other computer model that has been developed. At time zero, there could be a blizzard in Siberia, a typhoon in Japan, monsoons in Mumbai and a heatwave in southern Australia, not to mention the odd volcanic explosion, which could all be gone in a day or so. There is never a steady state point in time for the climate, so it’s impossible to validate climate models on initialisation. The best climate modelers can hope for is that their bright shiny new model doesn’t crash in the first few timesteps. The climate system is chaotic which essentially means any model will be a poor predictor of the future – you can’t even make a model of a lottery ball machine (which is a comparatively a much simpler and smaller interacting system) and use it to predict the outcome of the next draw. So, if climate models are populated with little more than educated guesses instead of actual observational data at time zero, and errors accumulate with every timestep, how do climate modelers address this problem? History matching If the system that’s being computer modelled has been in operation for some time, you can use that data to tune the model and then start the forecast before that period finishes to see how well it matches before making predictions. Unlike other computer modelers, climate modelers call this ‘hindcasting’ because it doesn’t sound like they are manipulating the model parameters to fit the data. The theory is, that even though climate model construction has many flaws, such as large grid sizes, patchy data of dubious quality in the early years, and poorly understood physical phenomena driving the climate that has been parameterised, that you can tune the model during hindcasting within parameter uncertainties to overcome all these deficiencies. While it’s true that you can tune the model to get a reasonable match with at least some components of history, the match isn’t unique. When computer models were first being used last century, the famous mathematician, John Von Neumann, said: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” In climate models there are hundreds of parameters that can be tuned to match history. What this means is there is an almost infinite number of ways to achieve a match. Yes, many of these are non-physical and are discarded, but there is no unique solution as the uncertainty on many of the parameters is large and as long as you tune within the uncertainty limits, innumerable matches can still be found. An additional flaw in the history matching process is the length of some of the natural cycles. For example, ocean circulation takes place over hundreds of years, and we don’t even have 100 years of data with which to match it. In addition, it’s difficult to history match to all climate variables. While global average surface temperature is the primary objective of the history matching process, other data, such a tropospheric temperatures, regional temperatures and precipitation, diurnal minimums and maximums are poorly matched. Even so, can the history matching of the primary variable, average global surface temperature, constrain the accumulating errors that inevitably occur with each model timestep? Forecasting Consider a shotgun. When the trigger is pulled, the pellets from the cartridge travel down the barrel, but there is also lateral movement of the pellets. The purpose of the shotgun barrel is to dampen the lateral movements and to narrow the spread when the pellets leave the barrel. It’s well known that shotguns have limited accuracy over long distances and there will be a shot pattern that grows with distance. The history match period for a climate model is like the barrel of the shotgun. So what happens when the model moves from matching to forecasting mode? Figure 5: IPCC models in forecast mode for the Mid-Troposphere vs Balloon and Satellite observations [5] Like the shotgun pellets leaving the barrel, numerical dispersion takes over in the forecasting phase. Each of the 73 models in Figure 5 has been history matched, but outside the constraints of the matching period, they quickly diverge. Now at most only one of these models can be correct, but more likely, none of them are. If this was a real scientific process, the hottest two thirds of the models would be rejected by the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), and further study focused on the models closest to the observations. But they don’t do that for a number of reasons. Firstly, if they reject most of the models, there would be outrage amongst the climate scientist community, especially from the rejected teams due to their subsequent loss of funding. More importantly, the so called 97% consensus would instantly evaporate. Secondly, once the hottest models were rejected, the forecast for 2100 would be about 1.5o C increase (due predominately to natural warming) and there would be no panic, and the gravy train would end. So how should the IPPC reconcile this wide range of forecasts? Imagine you wanted to know the value of bitcoin 10 years from now so you can make an investment decision today. You could consult an economist, but we all know how useless their predictions are. So instead, you consult an astrologer, but you worry whether you should bet all your money on a single prediction. Just to be safe, you consult 100 astrologers, but they give you a very wide range of predictions. Well, what should you do now? You could do what the IPCC does, and just average all the predictions. You can’t improve the accuracy of garbage by averaging it. An Alternative Approach Climate modelers claim that a history match isn’t possible without including CO2 forcing. This is may be true using the approach described here with its many approximations, and only tuning the model to a single benchmark (surface temperature) and ignoring deviations from others (such as tropospheric temperature), but analytic (as opposed to numeric) models have achieved matches without CO2 forcing. These are models, based purely on historic climate cycles that identify the harmonics using a mathematical technique of signal analysis, which deconstructs long and short term natural cycles of different periods and amplitudes without considering changes in CO2 concentration. In Figure 6, a comparison is made between the IPCC predictions and a prediction from just one analytic harmonic model that doesn’t depend on CO2 warming. A match to history can be achieved through harmonic analysis and provides a much more conservative prediction that correctly forecasts the current pause in temperature increase, unlike the IPCC models. The purpose of this example isn’t to claim that this model is more accurate, it’s just another model, but to dispel the myth that there is no way history can be explained without anthropogenic CO2 forcing and to show that it’s possible to explain the changes in temperature with natural variation as the predominant driver. Figure 6: Comparison of the IPCC model predictions with those from a harmonic analytical model [6]
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 11, 2022 | Sundance
Perhaps a little focus on the foundation of the issue is in order.
Ever since the professional Republican apparatus decided to target, eliminate and destroy the grassroots movement known as the Tea Party, there was always going to come a time when the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP Club would take place.
CTH has been calling this battle ‘The Big Ugly‘ for around a decade.
The Big Ugly battle is essentially the fight between the grassroots working class base of MAGA voters and the professional political snobs in control of the Republican Club boardroom.
Some call it the ‘base’ -vs- the ‘establishment’. There are other names and catchphrases, but the essence of the dynamic is the same. A scruffy voting base, who, prior to Donald Trump, had no visible leader to represent their internal interests around the mahogany table.
Ordinary voters were in an abusive relationship with the people around the GOP boardroom. The Club needed our votes, and our money (less so after the Citizens United decision) but had no intention of ever actually delivering on the priorities of the voters. The Republican political establishment played Lucy with the football for years, and We The People always ended up flat on our backs, continually frustrated and feeling used.
In the same year the Tea Party rose up, the Supreme Court gave the GOP Club legal access to unlimited corporate money with the 2010 Citizens United decision. Mitch McConnell used the newly unrestrained campaign finance mechanism to further diminish the influence of the unwashed masses and eliminate the movement; it’s all well documented.
For the next several years we watched and participated in a political pantomime with highlights to include the 2012 installation of Club member Mitt Romney to represent our interests. Yeah, whatever…. It was a hot mess. Bumper Sticker:
The base voters watched the GOP Corporate Club do nothing to block Obamacare, even after we gave them the House in 2010 midterms. Obamacare was another Lucy and the football scenario, while the Senate wing of the Corporate Club created “comprehensive immigration reform,” including amnesty with Marco Rubio. Eventually, the bloom wore off the ruse, and we dispatched Virginia Club official Eric Cantor as a message to the Corporate Club to knock it off.
The Corporate Club didn’t and doesn’t care. Instead, while they sold out the working-class to the multinationals (TPA, TPP, Paris Climate, etc) they fought harder, gaslight more, and made even more promises they never intended to keep. Lucy had an unending supply of footballs.
Then in 2015 things changed. The voting base found a weapon for use against the Republican Club, the weapon’s name was Donald Trump. From the very first poll conducted after his 2015 announcement Trump was leading the charge, and that lead steamrolled 16 other Club approved candidates. The Club remained furious and vowed to remove the disrupter we sent into the boardroom.
Candidate Trump and President Donald Trump tried to deal with them fair and square on our behalf, but they rebuked him and us.
The Club schemed against him, connived in their little corporate groups to get rid of him, joined with the communists in common cause to cleanse the Club boardroom of the smell from oil, tar and fuel oil, and wanted that vulgarian representative of the dirty fingernail working class eliminated. They want only the “approved Republican” presence.
So, it was always going to get ugly.
It was always going to get Big Ugly.
The Club’s enlistment of former TPP approving congressman Ron DeSantis as a foil against the MAGA leader is transparent. DeSantis, funded by massive contributions from the Wall Street approval committee, replaces the prior approved candidate, Jeb. This Big Ugly battle was always going to end up with vulgarian Trump -vs- the next Jeb. The Club has selected DeSantis as Jeb.
Now, let’s be clear. The Republican political establishment, which includes the entirety of the multinationals in/around it, hereafter just called ‘The Club’, doesn’t give a damn about actually winning the 2024 presidential race. The Club didn’t give a damn when Romney was used either.
What the Club wants is full control of the Club agenda, that’s where the money is. The color of the flag atop the Capitol Hill dome is irrelevant to the activity that takes place beneath it. To understand, remind yourself of: The 2017 Obamacare repeal vote, 2015 TPA and fast track approval, 2015 Corker-Cardin amendment for Obama’s Iran Deal, 2014 Gang-of-Eight amnesty bill, or more recently the 2022 unlimited Ukraine funding.
Under the Capitol Hill dome both Club wings of the UniParty apparatus feed the multinational corporate vulture, regardless of the color of the flag atop the spire.
The Republican Club has no interest in Ron DeSantis becoming President of the United States. The Republican Club has interest in Donald Trump NOT becoming President of the United States. Ron DeSantis is the foil, nothing more. It’s not about Ron DeSantis, it’s about the Club, the mechanism behind Ron DeSantis – the same mechanism that put $200 million into his campaign as enticement for his usefulness.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis -vs- California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024 is simply two clubs playing the illusion of choice game.
Ultimately, using history and modern politics as the perspective, if you really boil down the political sauce to its reduced state, what you find is… With DeSantis the DNC Club needs less ballot collection to defeat him. However, that’s irrelevant to the intent of his usefulness for the GOP club.
For the professional GOP Club, as openly expressed by the establishment politicians within it, the donors behind it and the media who promote it, the goal is to remove the populism within the club and bring back the multinational Club alignment with the corporations. That alignment was severely damaged by President Trump and the America First economic agenda.
The core of the Big Ugly battle is a Club motive based on money, power and boardroom affluence, in essence, GREED.
For ten plus years on these pages, I have written extensively about how there was always, always, going to be a point where the Big Ugly battle was going to have to be waged. We have waited and waited, looking at each moment, each conflict, each disparagement, each slight and snub, in hope the spark would ignite.
If the Big Ugly arrives in a contest between President Trump and Governor DeSantis, well, great; it needs to happen.
The bottom line is we need this Big Ugly fight. Not only does the future of the GOP reside in the outcome, the future of a constitutional republic free from corporatism is contingent upon it.
Yes, this fight is going to be big, and it’s going to be ugly… and in the aftermath, hopefully lots of free footballs.
COMMENT: Marty, I love all that you do. I want to challenge anyone to find a county in the USA that is more corrupt that Harris County Texas (Houston) regarding vote fraud, nothing to see here keep moving: Harris County Elections administrator can’t answer why polling locations ran out of paper Harris County Elections Administrator Clifford Tatum said his office started receiving paper ballot shortage calls as early as 7:30 a.m. on Election Day. (21 republican locations and up to 100,000 votes) an Author: Jeremy Rogalski Published: 7:25 PM CST November 9, 2022
Nearly 127,000 Harris County drive-thru votes appear safe after federal judge rejects GOP-led Texas lawsuit The Republican plaintiffs in an appeal asked that drive-thru voting be halted on Election Day, but did not immediately ask again that ballots that have already been cast be tossed out. BY JOLIE MCCULLOUGH NOV. 2, 2020UPDATED: NOV. 3, 2020 Houston Scrambles After Blaze That Destroyed Voting Machines Houston firefighters poured water on the smoldering shell of a warehouse that caught fire around 4 a.m. on Aug. 27. Credit…Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle, Via Associated Press By James C. McKinley Jr. Sept. 10, 2010.
PES
REPLY: This is my big concern. Reports are coming in from all over. This election will never be accepted. I have warned that this election will be so corrupt, it will probably go down in history with the most corrupt election during the Roman Republic where there were so many bribes, and interest rates soared during 53BC. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49BC, the people cheered and it was the oligarchs who fled to Greece – all the Senators. Unfortunately, Cicero was one of the oligarchs and his FAKE NEWS wrongly influenced many including the Founding Fathers of the United States. Had they seen the other accounts, they may never have chosen a Republic without term limits and prohibited any change to anything major absent a 2/3rd vote.
People are simply not prepared for a sharp economic downturn. The Money and Pensions Serviceconducted a poll in the UK in which it found around 25% of adults have under £100 in savings. The 3,000-person survey found that 17% reported having absolutely nothing set aside. Around 5% reportedly had under £50, while 4% had between £50 and £100.
The drastically increased cost of living has many living paycheck to paycheck. The Building Societies Association (BSA), as reported by the BBC, conducted a separate survey that found that 35% of people in the UK simply stopped saving due to inflation. Around 36% said they are already dipping into their savings accounts to pay the bills.
The Bank of England is anticipating a long recession ahead. The central bank sees economic conditions contracting through the first half of 2024. The central bank’s prediction of five consecutive quarters of contraction would mark the longest recession in UK history. The people have not experienced the full effects of this recession, and most are simply not prepared for what lies ahead.
The concept of “fascism” was originally entered into the Encyclopedia Italiana by Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who stated that “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini would later take credit for the quote as if he had written it himself, but it’s important to note because it outlines the primary purpose of the ideology rather than simply throwing the label around at people we don’t like as a dishonest means to undermine their legitimacy.
Despite the fact that leftists today often attack conservatives as “fascists” because of our desire to protect national boundaries and western heritage, the truth is that all fascism is deeply rooted in leftist philosophies and thinkers.
Mussolini was a long time socialist, a member of the party who greatly admired Karl Marx. He deviated from the socialists over their desire to remain neutral during WWI, and went on to champion a combination of socialism and nationalism, what we now know as fascism. Adolph Hitler was also a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx, much like Mussolini. It is actually hard to find where Marx, the communists and the fascists actually differ from each other – A deeper sense of nationalism seems to be one of the few points of contention.
Though Marx saw the existence of nation states as temporary to the proletariat and to the ruling class, he noted that the industrialists were erasing national boundaries anyway. Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto with some optimism:
“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are already tending to disappear more and more, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, the growth of free trade and a world market, and the increasing uniformity of industrial processes and of corresponding conditions of life.”
Marx saw the development of corporate power as useful and the next necessary step towards socialism, noting that joint-stock companies (corporations) and the credit system are:
“The abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself.”
In other words, corporations are viewed as a tool for the eventual transition to a socialist “Utopia” and the death of free markets. Once again, we see there is very little difference in motive between the political left and the fascists. The natural progression of every form of Marxism, communism, socialism, fascism etc. all ultimately lead to a kind of globalist ideology and erasure of cultural separation. The methods might differ slightly but the end result is the same. Some think this is a good thing, but it is actually quite poisonous.
Globalism requires an overarching social dynamic, a single hive mind, otherwise it cannot survive. If people have the ability to choose or create better options (or different options) for living then globalism loses significance. The existence of choice has to be erased. This is a behavior that the political left has fully embraced and they are more than happy to work hand-in-hand with corporate oligarchs to make their ideal system a reality. Long gone are the days of the anti-corporate progressive – They LOVE corporate dominance, but only if those companies promote and enforce leftist models for society.
Mussolini’s fascism is at the root of the very corporate governance that leftists applaud and lust after today. They have far more in common with fascists than they realize.
The new fascism is a re-branded philosophy best represented by something called “Stakeholder Capitalism.” It is a term often used by globalists at the World Economic Forum and the head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab. The media friendly definition of Stakeholder Capitalism is:
A form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.
But who are “all stakeholders” in the opinion of the WEF?
Well, according to Klaus Schwab they are all of human civilization, now and in the future. In other words, the goal of SHC is for corporate leaders and globalist bureaucracy to take responsibility for the entire world, not just their own employees, shareholders and profits. And such leaders would not be acting as individuals, they would be acting as a collective. In other words, SHC requires all major corporations to act as a single unit with a single purpose and a unified collectivist ideology – An ideological monopoly.
As Klaus Schwab states:
“The most important characteristic of the stakeholder model today is that the stakes of our system are now more clearly global. Economies, societies, and the environment are more closely linked to each other now than 50 years ago. The model we present here is therefore fundamentally global in nature, and the two primary stakeholders are as well.
…What was once seen as externalities in national economic policy making and individual corporate decision making will now need to be incorporated or internalized in the operations of every government, company, community, and individual. The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.”
The SHC concept is deceptive on its very face because it pretends as if corporations will be held accountable by the public within some form of “business democracy,” as if the public will have a vote on what the corporations do. In reality, it will be corporations telling the public what is acceptable to think and do and corporations in conjunction with governments using their power to punish people who do not agree.
The great magic trick is that these same unified corporations use the shield of “private property” and business rights as a means to control society without repercussions. After all, a primary principle of conservatism and the US constitution is private property rights. So, stepping in to disrupt corporate governance would be violating one of our own beloved ideals. It sounds like a Catch-22, but it’s really not.
As mentioned above, corporations are at their very core a socialist concept: They are created through government charter, handed legal personhood and given special protections from government. They are NOT free market entities, and Adam Smith, the originator of most free market ideals, stood against corporations as destructive and prone to monopoly.
As long as they receive protections from government including monetary stimulus and bailouts, corporations should not enjoy the same private property protections as regular businesses do. They are parasitic creations, alien to the natural business world. In a freedom-based society they would be dismantled to prevent authoritarian outcomes.
Stakeholder Capitalism is also an incredibly arrogant premise because it assumes that corporate leaders have the wisdom or objective intelligence to expand their role beyond business and into social and political spheres. This has already happened in many respects with much chaos created, but open corporate governance is the end game and it is anything but objective or benevolent.
What are some examples of this kind of corporate/political governance (fascism) in action?
How about Big Tech social media censorship leaning HEAVILY against conservatives and liberty activists? How about evidence of collusion between Big Tech companies and government, such as the Biden Administration and the DHS working closely with Twitter and Facebook to actively remove voices and viewpoints they don’t like? How about corporate leaders colluding to destroy conservative based social media competitors like Parler?
How about ESG loans funded by corporate backers such as Blackrock or globalist non-profits like the Rockefeller Foundation?
If all corporate lenders applied ESG to their loan practices, all individuals and businesses would have to adopt leftist social ideologies and dubious environmental claims in order to have access to credit. ESG is a monetary incentive created by corporate elites to keep all other businesses in line. If it continues, ESG could wipe out political opposition to globalism in the span of a single generation.
And, what about the Council For Inclusive Capitalism? This is the most blatant expression of open global fascism I have ever seen, with money elites and politicians working in concert with the UN and even religious leaders like Pope Francis. Their goal is to institute a single centralized world governing platform built around the same agendas outlined in ESG and SHC, making corporations members of a new global council which they refer to as “The Guardians.” They aren’t even trying to hide the conspiracy anymore, it’s right out in the open.
Klaus Schwab takes special care to mention often that global crisis events are the “opportunity” that is needed to push the public into the arms of Stakeholder Capitalism through a nexus point called “The Great Reset.” Meaning, he thinks that widespread fear and desperation must exist (or be engineered) to perpetuate the SHC framework quickly.
Obviously, the globalists are on a shrinking timeline, though it’s hard to say why. They are tearing off the mask faster in the past two years than they have in the previous decade. More than likely they understand to some degree that if they go too slow the public will have time to mount a defense against them.
They will conjure all kinds of distractions and scapegoats to prevent liberty minded people from hitting them back. They’ll aim us at Russia, they’ll aim us at China, they’ll aim us at useful idiots among the leftists. They’ll aim Russia, China and the leftists at us. They will try to send us to war, they will call us insurrectionists, they will call us terrorists, they will say we started the whole collapse and that we are to blame for the world’s ills. None of this matters. What matters is that the globalists at the top pay the price for the harm they cause.
When the head of the snake is removed, only then can we sort out who is to blame; who were the heroes, who were the villains, and who were the idiots. Only then can we rebuild with true freedom in mind.
Once again your caution proved to be warranted. 2020 looks like it was a dry run for how Democrats will hold onto power….vote harvesting and the Dominion Systems.
I wondered what the week of November 7 would be about. Now it seems we have the answer.
MS
REPLY: I do not have the luxury of personal opinion. My job is to relay what the computer is projecting. It just did not show this idea of a Red Wave. The computer showed that the Republicans could take the House, but not the Senate. This will only help to keep the polarization of the United States. The left simply hates the right and this is what will eventually lead to civil unrest and the break up of the United States.
This hatred began with Hillary calling Republicans “deplorable” and her blaming Putin for her own failed policies which are what the younger girls in our office call Feminine Nazis. She was so 1960’s women’s lib that girls should be drafted into the military which resulted in so many younger girls being anti-Hillary. But the hatred she had from the gender wars of the ’60s and blaming Putin after creating the fake Russian dossier on Trump set in motion this great divide. The Democrats still believe that Putin rigged the 2016 election. There is no changing that. It is not just the far right that believed in rigged elections. The Democrats still cling to the same idea.
The net result of this war between the left v right is the end of the United States. There is absolutely no reason to have a single nation where one side gets to oppress the other every 4 years. As Lincoln said, a country divided cannot stand.
This election is more than what our computer projected. The future demise of the United States would not unfold without the country being deeply divided. The Democrats now believe the people are ready to surrender everything for climate change and want world war III and the destruction of Russia. After all, what I hear from behind the curtain is that those Russians are right-wing religious fanatics who are against abortion and LGBT. They need to be wiped from the face of the earth. They have made this both a claimed war for democracy (tyranny) and religion against the far-right. That hatred of demonizing Russia is the critical link for the projection of 2032.
Nobody will accept elections as being fair from here on out. Welcome to the new age of economic enslavement and absolute tyranny all for Climate Change and then their push for the one-world government headed by the United Nations. They needed Biden who will sign whatever they put in front of him. They need the UN because no single country can fight climate change.
The end of any democratic right to vote is their agenda.
COMMENT: The post dealing with the mid-terms had this gem: “This is why all the Greek philosophers from Socrates to Plato were against democracy. It allowed a thin majority to become tyrannical.” What then is the alternative, for there will never come a time when we all agree about anything, let alone everything? The unstated alternative is that a minority becomes tyrannical and enforces their vision on everyone. Those are the two choices. There aren’t others just waiting to be discovered. Either the majority has it or the minority has it and as this is supposed to be a battle between ideas, the idea getting the most support should be the one chosen. Otherwise, candidates would try to lose the election so as that their plans would be enacted. Sorry, but that is just too stupid to be taken seriously by anyone with a still functioning brain in their head. As Churchill noted, “Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others.” And he was absolutely correct. If you don’t like what the majority is doing, change the minds of those who are persuadable; don’t bitch about not getting your way because your ideas were not popular. That is what infants do!
VK
REPLY: A friend invited me to dinner. There was another there who was a major programmer for Microsoft. He was a Biden supporter and convinced that climate change may have always existed, but we are the cause right now. There are people among the Democrats who have just been brainwashed with sophistry. If they were not being mentally manipulated by a small group of elites with an agenda they would never agree with if the truth were told, then there would be perhaps a more reasonable world.
Then you have egos. Trump felt his endorsing power was not what he and others thought it was. So he told the WSJ he knew some dit on DeSantis. This is the problem. Trump was on the right track and he was what the people rallied behind – term limits and draining the swamp. But now his personal ego is surfacing and that becomes a problem in politics. It is hard to resist when everyone says you control the power.
The best form of government I have ever seen was that of Genoa where the Doge (president) rotated annually amount the wealthy families. This was before Marxism. There was no social warfare. They ran Genoa more like a company competing against Venice and Florence. Because the Doge rotated, nobody would pass a law that was draconian since they would have to live under that law the following years and it would be more than a decade before the wheel would return to their family.
Marxist Socialism has been highly destructive. It has begun the division that undermines the purpose of civilization – that we all come together because we all benefit. When one group targets another, that is it. You begin the process of economic suicide. The Democrats no longer know how to run for office without promising to rob one group for the benefit of another.
Republics are always the worst form of government because they can be bribed. Look at the bankers. They have blown up the world economy countless times and NEVER has a single banker ever been charged. They own the SEC and CFTC – the case is closed for they will never be held accountable – EVER!
I tried to warn the Republicans, but they too want to hear what they prefer to believe. I warned them that they would NOT be able to reverse what Biden has set in motion.
While the results are not final, where it stands now is unfortunately in line with what our computer has been projecting. The Senate will most likely remain in Democratic hands and the House may flip to the Republicans. Worse still, this will only embolden the Democrats and this Climate Change War along with unleashing World War III. However, this merely reaffirms what our computer has been projecting with serious civil unrest next year. The Democrats will push their radical agenda now in full force for they will not represent the country and the middle of the road, but their left-wing agenda. This will lead to dramatic civil unrest. You cannot have such a thin majority oppress the other side. We did not see this red wave that many were forecasting. The US is on schedule for a decline and fall by 2032. We needed a sharply divided nation to accomplish this end result. We got it!
This is why all the Greek philosophers from Socrates to Plato were against democracy. It allowed a thin majority to become tyrannical. This is what we are experiencing and it is why our computer is showing massive civil unrest next year. Republics, however, always die from suicide. Caesar was forced to cross the Rubicon because of the massive internal corruption. We will see the same fate that took down the Roman Republic. The collapse of the Roman Republic was also set in motion by a massive debt crisis. History always repeats.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
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
Figure 1: Incremental warming effect of CO2 alone [1]
Figure 2: Typical grid used in climate models [2]
Figure 3: Global weather stations circa 1885 [3]
Figure 4: How grid cells interact with adjacent cells [4]
Figure 5: IPCC models in forecast mode for the Mid-Troposphere vs Balloon and Satellite observations [5]
Figure 6: Comparison of the IPCC model predictions with those from a harmonic analytical model [6]
Centinel2012 
