England will provide thirty individuals £1,600 per month to study Guaranteed Basic Income, also known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). The pilot program will monitor these individuals for two years to see how they put the money to use. As I noted in the blog post about the Cloward-Piven study, there must be no conditions for true Guaranteed Basic Income to work. That means that those chosen will effectively receive a “free” government handout at the expense of the working taxpayers.
The working taxpayers in lower earning brackets will likely look at those receiving free handouts and wonder how they too can get in on the scheme. “This is a substantial amount. Universal basic income usually covers people’s basic needs but we want to see what effect this unconditional lump sum has on people’s mental and physical health, whether they choose to work or not,” Will Stronge, the director of Autonomy thinktank, told the Guardian. “Our society is going to require some form of basic income in the coming years, given the tumult of climate change, tech disruption and industrial transition that lies ahead. This is why building the evidence base and public engagement now is so important, so the ground is well prepared for national implementation.”
They are already setting the precedent for a need for a welfare state. They’re purposely using a small sample size of 30 so that they do not need to show the drain the welfare system causes on the system. Those behind the social experiment claim UBI could eliminate poverty and create a perfect utopia. There is not ONE example in history where socialism has worked. Global governments have exacerbated inflation and the cost of living, and now they want you to rely on them for your needs solely. Socialism is never free. They will need to raise taxes and take from others to redistribute wealth, providing no incentive to work or for innovation to take place. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
The year is 2023 — our top leaders cannot define the term “woman,” so why should they be protected? We know about the ongoing eugenics program in Canada under the expansion of MAID, but no one discusses the forced sterilization of girls and women across the European Union. Yes, the European Union. People are in an uproar over abortion and how other countries treat women, but the West is a top human rights offender.
Women with disabilities may be forcibly sterilized across the European Union. Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, and Poland are the only countries that have criminalized the practice, with Spain also banning the practice in 2020. Portugal, Hungary, and the Czech Republic permit parents to sterilize their daughters without consent. “It is a very cruel form of domination, both of sexuality and reproduction,” María Eugenia Rodríguez Palop, Member of the European Parliament, told Euronews. The European Parliament will discuss the topic in July. Should women with disabilities be prohibited from procreating?
The countries that enforce these eugenics programs do not currently keep official data. It is a dirty stain that they do not want others to see. The EU points to other countries for their human rights abuses but turns a blind eye to the treatment of their own women.
This is clearly a eugenics program and an unethical form of population control. Hitler grouped people with disabilities into a class called “useless eaters” as they could not contribute to the economy. The European Union is also closely linked to the World Economic Forum. Yuval Noah Harari, a self-described historian and one of Schwab’s loudest mouthpieces, believes that we will see the rise of the “useless class.” There will be “a new massive useless class that has no military or economic usefulness, and therefore no political power,” he stated. This is another push toward the World Economic Forum’s goal of government control – you need us but we don’t need you.
Where is the international outcry for these girls and women forcibly undergoing sterilization in the West? Be on high alert when a global agency begins referring to portions of the population as “useless.”
Posted originally on the CTH on June 5, 2023 | Sundance
The New York Times has gained insider information on the current advertising revenue for the social media platform Twitter. [Article Here] Ignoring the nonsense narrative engineering and just focusing on the data itself, the revenue side for Twitter is half what we previously estimated. This makes the overlay for decisions on platform content even more stark.
According to the data, ad revenue for the month of April was a lackluster $88 million. That’s a pace of just over $1 billion a year. With a pre-Musk operating expense of $4.5 billion, and pre-Musk revenue at $4 billion cited by the Twitter owner as the backdrop, here’s the outlook.
Assuming post Musk labor cost reductions saved $500 million, a decline in revenue to $1 billion/yr would be a $3.0 billion deficit, to wit you would need to add the $1.5 billion in debt service as part of the investor buyout structure.
That puts Twitter into a $4.5 billion loss ballpark per year.
(New York Times) – Twitter’s U.S. advertising revenue for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was $88 million, down 59 percent from a year earlier, according to an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times. (read more)
$1 billion per year in advertising revenue is a whopping 75% loss from the claimed $4 billion in revenue before the Musk purchase. Perhaps the Fidelity estimate of company value at $15 billion is closer to reality.
If the value of Twitter has dropped to the $15 billion level, that means almost all of the $30 billion in personal equity Musk put into the company has been lost.
Current investor debt is $12.5 billion, with $1.5 billion in debt service/yr. A valuation of $15 billion would only leave Musk with around $2.5 billion in equity position. If the valuation is accurate, Musk personally would have lost around $27.5 billion in this Twitter platform purchase.
The last time I outlined the Twitter financial position, several people took exception to the data as shared. However, the data is from Elon Musk himself, and I will again post the video at the bottom of the article.
Revenue is now Elon Musk’s #1 priority. All other platform decisions are going through the prism of financial viability.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk has provided some convincing commentary about his willingness to forgo revenue in order to retain “free speech.” However, more recently he has qualified that outlook by saying, “Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach.” Musk noting Twitter will block, remove, censor, shadow ban, deboost, downrank and stop content from amplifying based on the determination of those in charge of Twitter content.
This controlled “freedom of reach” perspective, which is really shadow-banning in practice, is generally accepted and now admitted. Against this backdrop, it becomes important to understand the priorities of the platform to understand the guidelines of the platform. Within this context the financials are key to understanding what elements are included within “approved content.” {GO DEEP}
Twitter is now a private company, therefore understanding the financials of Twitter is a little more challenging than when they were required to post their financial statements publicly. However, Elon Musk gave an interview with the Babylon Bee yesterday and revealed some of the internal financial challenges. [VIDEO HERE] I am going to summarize the status of the Twitter financial position according to what Musk himself revealed.
♦ Twitter was initially purchased by Musk and his investors for around $44 billion. The company now estimates its value around $20 billion. Last week, the mutual funds giant Fidelity, which owns shares in Twitter, valued the company at $15 billion. Bottom line, Musk grossly overpaid.
♦ Musk put roughly $30 billions of his own net worth into the purchase and financed the rest.
♦ Current outstanding debt on the financing for the purchase is around $12.5 billion. Per Musk statement.
♦ Current debt service, interest on the loans (from investors), is roughly $1.5 billion/yr. $120.5 million per month for debt service. Per Musk statement.
♦ Previous revenue (when public) was roughly $4 billion/yr. Twitter was generally breaking even.
♦ Advertising revenue, as a result of changes in industry in combination with concerns about Twitter, are “half” what they were during the acquisition phase, per Musk statement. That puts current advertising revenue around $2 billion/yr. Per NYT report that’s now $1 billion/yr.
♦ Per conversation, current status of Twitter is -$3 billion/yr and could be as high as -$4 to 5 billion/yr.
The NYT revenue leak now makes the top side of this scale make sense. If $4 billion in revenue was generally the breakeven point (before acquisition), and now they have $2 billion $1 billion in revenue and $1.5 billion in additional debt service [as they trim operational costs (including labor) to offset].
♦♦ For the bottom line to be an operational loss of $3 to $5 billion (est) per year, Twitter is generally losing around $300 million per month.
♦ There is only so much Tesla stock Musk can sell to support Twitter. He has limits. Per conversation.
♦ Twitter has around $1 billion in liquid cash available. Per conversation. With a burn rate of $300+ million a month.
Twitter is in locked contracts with AWS and Google cloud services through 2025 at roughly $300 million per year for both [AWS $100 million, Goog $200 million].
Twitter Blue subscriptions are around 180,000 users, paying $11/mo. That’s around $2 million a month; pittance in comparison to what he needs.
There’s your prism for platform content!
Elon Musk needs revenue desperately.
Twitter urgently needs advertising revenue.
Without revenue or acquisition of another platform (with assets) to offset the current status of Twitter, it is only a matter of time before some form of bankruptcy. [Note, Twitter investors are backstopped with Tesla/SpaceX as collateral against default.]
The tightrope… Elon Musk must appease the Google advertising control agents and adhere to content rules and regulation (DEI etc.) in order to maximize his revenue. That’s where Linda Yaccarino comes in as a critical player.
Bottom line, Musk has to make decisions through one prism, THE ECONOMICS. Musk’s decision-making, pro freedom or not, is constrained by this financial dependency. Hence, a lot of the platform censorship elements remain (including some personnel) and now the outreach to appoint Google/WEF approved Linda Yaccarino in an effort to enhance the revenue.
When you are perplexed about Musk decision making…. THERE’S YOUR ANSWER.
The recent relationship between Elon Musk and the Rupert Murdoch media enterprise, now makes even more sense.
(images directly from BlackRock’s website – click on them to enlarge)
The first bill that President Joe Biden vetoed was a bill intended to dissolve the ESG climate social credit score. The bill passed 50-46 in the Senate before being destroyed by Biden. Out of all the issues facing America, Biden chose to use his presidential powers to kill this bill because it is intended to promote the Great Reset to Build Back Better.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) stated that the “woke ESG rule [would let] Wall Street use your retirement savings to fund left-wing political causes.” “The House blocked Biden’s woke ESG agenda. The Senate blocked Biden’s woke ESG agenda. Now it heads to the President’s desk. He must side with American workers and sign it immediately,” McCarthy stated, only to have Biden veto the bill. Those in support of the bill stated that the Labor Department was given the power to misdirect $12 trillion in retirement funds affecting 150 million Americans.
Furthermore, Fink claimed that it is the place of government, and not companies, to implement social and environmental policies. This goes directly against his letter “A Sense of Purpose,” in which he said the people needed the private sector to implement policies since government had failed to do so. Fink insists clients want sustainable and progressive investment opportunities to add to their portfolios. Yet, BlackRock is known to abandon companies that fail to adhere to strict ESG policies.
Fink points to natural disasters that humans could never prevent as a main reason for forcing the ESG score. The truth of the matter is that these titans of finance and various global governments are all supporting the Great Reset movement.
Ukraine is an untrustworthy government. Their end goal has ALWAYS been to destroy Russia. They were the first state to pull out of Russia and pitched the destruction of the Soviet Union to other member states. Ukraine was NEVER its own country. It became a country and achieved its sovereignty but that was never good enough. They had to start the civil war against the Donbas. If you want this war to continue, then grab a gun and go fight for this most corrupt head of state probably in the entire world.
The facts are clear. Ukraine launched what it called Special Operations and began the civil war attacking the Russian civilians in the Donbas calling them terrorists because they wanted separation from Ukraine which has outlawed their language and even outlawed their religion ordering all churches to be subservient to their propped-up Patriarch – not the traditional one in Moscow. This is sort of the French seizing the Vatican and moving it to Avignon. This was their response to the Minsk Agreement where Ukraine was to separate and adopt a change to their Constitution. Ukraine has discriminated against anyone who is not Ukrainian and that included Hungarian and Polish living in Ukraine. That has been their legacy from Nazi Germany.
The Ukrainians are fighting for the territory that was never theirs. They want Russia out, along with all other minorities they hate and do not trust. Make no mistake about it, if Russia loses, the Ukrainians will massacre all Russians in the Donbas territory. The West ignores the fact that the Ukrainians carried out a massacre of ethnic Russians who lived in Odessa as soon as their 2014 Revolution and that is what started this entire civil war that the Western Press will not address.
The 2014 Massacre of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Odessa where they killed them grabbing them on the streets was a Neo-Nazi event. That was the turning point. It revealed that the Donbas had to separate for the Neo-Nazis wanted their death, not their submission. That began the civil war. They set fire to the building and burned all the Russian-speaking Ukrainians alive. For the first time in history, an organized massacre of civilians was carried out and even filmed by numerous people. This has been documented in extraordinary detail and the Neo-Nazis did not even fear of any negative consequences in world opinion.
If we do NOT abandon Ukraine and force them to live peacefully, they will engulf the entire world. They will use the F16s and attack the Russian Fleet and be prepared to send your children or yourself to go fight for the liar and greedy corrupt politician – Zelensky. We should die for this corruption? Honor the Minsk Agreement and it is over in 24 hours.
Oh yes. Throw in a pair of diamond-studded high heels. That may clinch the deal.
This is why the United States is dead. It can no longer stand united and, like Ukraine, we too will simply have to split. There should be a property swap where Democrats leave the Red States and go to the Blue States and vice versa. This is how empires always die. They collapse from an internal division that eats away at them from within like cancer. Hayley Williams has only shown how she is brainwashed into thinking that abortion is a woman’s right when it was a Gates-Rockafeller ploy to further eugenics and reduce the population of minorities.
Justice Ginsberg was a woman’s activist. She explained that Roe v Wade was not about women’s rights. It was about eugenics. So they get women to agree to war and whatever because all they can focus on is abortion which was a lie, to begin with.
You cannot allow one side to force their beliefs upon the other. Civilization can ONLY function when everyone benefits. As Lincoln said, united we stand, divided we fall.
Watch the video above or click here to view the latest interview.
Martin Armstrong returns to the Outer Limits of Inner Truth Podcast to discuss: what Socrates is saying about the 2024 election, the likelihood that CBDCs will not succeed based on what happened in Africa, the fall of Western Civilization, where the elites want to take humanity, and how to preserve your liberty in these trying times.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 1, 2023 | Sundance
Twitter CEO Elon Musk has provided some convincing commentary about his willingness to forgo revenue in order to retain “free speech.” However, more recently he has qualified that outlook by saying, “Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach.” Musk noting Twitter will block, remove, censor, shadow ban, deboost, downrank and stop content from amplifying based on the determination of those in charge of Twitter content.
This controlled “freedom of reach” perspective, which is really shadow-banning in practice, is generally accepted and now admitted. Against this backdrop, it becomes important to understand the priorities of the platform to understand the guidelines of the platform. Within this context the financials are key to understanding what elements are included within “approved content.” {GO DEEP}
Twitter is now a private company, therefore understanding the financials of Twitter is a little more challenging than when they were required to post their financial statements publicly. However, Elon Musk gave an interview with the Babylon Bee yesterday and revealed some of the internal financial challenges. [VIDEO HERE] I am going to summarize the status of the Twitter financial position according to what Musk himself revealed.
♦ Twitter was initially purchased by Musk and his investors for around $44 billion. The company now estimates its value around $20 billion. Musk overpaid.
♦ Musk put roughly $30 billions of his own net worth into the purchase and financed the rest.
♦ Current outstanding debt on the financing for the purchase is around $12.5 billion. Per Musk statement.
♦ Current debt service, interest on the loans (from investors), is roughly $1.5 billion/yr. $120.5 million per month for debt service. Per Musk statement.
♦ Previous revenue (when public) was roughly $4 billion/yr. Twitter was generally breaking even.
♦ Advertising revenue, as a result of changes in industry in combination with concerns about Twitter, are “half” what they were during the acquisition phase, per Musk statement. That puts current advertising revenue around $2 billion/yr.
♦ Per conversation, current status of Twitter is -$3 billion/yr and could be as high as -$4 to 5 billion/yr. This makes complete sense if $4 billion in revenue was generally the breakeven point (before acquisition), and now they have $2 billion in revenue and $1.5 billion in additional debt service [as they trim operational costs (including labor) to offset].
♦♦ For the bottom line to be an operational loss of $3 to $5 billion (est) per year, Twitter is generally losing around $300 million per month.
♦ There is only so much Tesla stock Musk can sell to support Twitter. He has limits. Per conversation.
♦ Twitter has around $100 million/mo in liquid cash available. Per conversation.
Twitter is in locked contracts with AWS and Google cloud services through 2025 at roughly $300 million per year for both [AWS $100 million, Goog $200 million].
There’s your prism for platform content!
Elon Musk needs revenue desperately.
Twitter urgently needs advertising revenue.
Without revenue or acquisition of another platform (with assets) to offset the current status of Twitter, it is only a matter of time before bankruptcy. [Note, Twitter investors are backstopped with Tesla/SpaceX as collateral against default.]
The tightrope… Elon Musk must appease the Google advertising control agents and adhere to content rules and regulation (DEI etc.) in order to maximize his revenue. That’s where Linda Yaccarino comes in as a critical player.
Bottom line, Musk has to make decisions through one prism, THE ECONOMICS. Musk’s decision-making, pro freedom or not, is constrained by this financial dependency. Hence, a lot of the platform censorship elements remain (including some personnel) and now the outreach to appoint Google/WEF approved Linda Yaccarino in an effort to enhance the revenue.
When you are perplexed about Musk decision making…. THERE’S YOUR ANSWER.
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
Centinel2012 