Posted originally on Oct 6, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Nepal, Morocco, Madagascar, and now South Korea—the youth are not accepting economic hardships quietly. South Korea passed a “public intimidation law” that criminalizes threats or acts of crime against the general public with a penalty of 20 million won ($13,700) or five years imprisonment. New data has found that half of the suspects are in their 20s and 30s, according to ministry data obtained by Representative Song Seok-jun.
The most common motive noted in around one-third of cases is anger or resentment toward society. The law went into effect back in March and there have been over 70 cases of public intimidation. Authorities have arrested over 50 people, mostly men in their 20s. Crimes vary from online hate to bomb threats.
Seoul National University’s School of Public Health reported in May that 55% of adults in South Korea are living in a state of “prolonged emotional frustration,” and 70% reported that society is “fundamentally unfair.”
Youth unemployment in South Korea has reached 15%, with the national average sitting at 5%. Over 1.2 million young people are unemployed, despite South Korea having one of the highest rates of higher education. Working for a family-run conglomerate or a chaebol is seen as prestigious compared to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) where working conditions and pay are less desirable. SK, LG, Samsung, and Hyundai alone accounted for 40.8% of the national GDP in 2023. In fact, 84.3% of all GDP can be traced to 64 companies ,but they compose only 10% of available jobs.
“The figures make clear that the chaebols’ impact on the Korean economy cannot be easily disregarded. But the 64 chaebol’s share of employment is lower than their share of revenue, which means they need to more aggressively expand their hiring,” said Oh Il-seon, director of the Korea CXO Institute.
Over 70% of Koreans between 25 and 34 hold a college degree, which is 20 points higher than the OECD average. Studies show that only 24% of college graduates in South Korea earn more than those with a high school diploma. In contrast, 69% of college graduated in America are employed.
South Korean children begin training for a position at a chaebol. The market is saturated with educated, eligible employees. Housing and the overall cost of living have skyrocketed. The youth followed the playbook and lost the game. South Korea already has a plethora of political turmoil, but no one is more vocal or willing to cause unrest than the youth.
Posted originally on Sep 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
The entire English Legal System has abandoned everything that once made Britain the beacon of human rights and liberty in the world. There is absolutely nothing left for Britain even to hold its head upright. This man, pretending to be a judge, ASSUMES what he said is racist, without acknowledging that the immigrants are NOT all of a particular race. Then he PRESUMES that those words instigated someone else to violence with ZERO evidence of that being the case at all. This is NOT the rule of law, and when that crumbles, the ONLY solution becomes revolution and violence, for there is no court of law that can ensure that society remains civilized.
Perhaps this “judge” who is obviously violating the English Bill of Rights should turn to Confusus. His legal doctrines are far better than this nonsense. Even Jesus Christ addressed a gathering of Jews and told them: “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Not in Britain. The truth will get you tax-free living in prison for 7 years.
The most famous trial where a jury stood up refusing to find the defendant guilty in the face of a corrupt government was that of William Penn (1644-1718), the founder of Pennsylvania. Penn was the leader of the Quakers in London, and you can see why people fled to America. The sect was not recognized by the government and was forbidden to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670, William Penn held a worship service on a quiet street, which a peaceful group of fellow Quakers attended. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested for disturbing the king’s peace and summoned to stand trial.
As the two men entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to put their hats, which they had removed, back on their heads. When they complied, they were called forward and held in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on. Penn discovered that contempt of court is a personal prerogative of the judge and an infliction of punishment by a judge who becomes the legislator, jury, and sentencing judge.
Penn demanded to know what crime he was being charged with preaching – the cornerstone of Due Process. The judge refused to supply any information as to his crime and instead referred vaguely to common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment (NOTICE), he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale dock.
Penn could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him. Several witnesses testified that Penn had preached to a gathering, which included Mead, but one showed some hesitancy as to whether Mead had been present. The judge turned to Mead and questioned him directly. In effect, the judge became the prosecutor, as he asked Mead if he was guilty. Mead invoked the common-law privilege against self-incrimination, which provoked hostile comments from the judge. The court then sent Mead to join Penn in the bale dock out of the sight of the jury and witnesses.
Finally, after the testimony, the court concluded that the judge had instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty as charged, dictating what verdict he had expected. Penn tried to protest but was silenced and again sent out of the courtroom. The jury, for its part, proved sympathetic to the two defendants and refused the judge’s command to find the defendants guilty.
At this point, the judge became so enraged, as I would expect from Judge Juan Merchan, and sent the jury back to reconsider their verdict. When they returned with the same verdict, the court criticized the jury’s leader, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”
After that, the jury was sent back three more times but returned with the same verdict. Finally, the jury refused to reconsider. The judge then fined each jury member forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they put on their hats.
Later, the jury members won a writ of habeas corpus and were released from prison. Penn and Mead left England after their release from prison, having a taste of English justice, and sailed to America. (Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p. 113-115). Thus, Pennsylvania was founded. This was the Bushel’s Case(1670) 124 E.R. 1006, a famous English decision on the role of juries and that they possessed the independence to decide the validity of the law being prosecuted.
Where is the Magna Carta Right to a Trial by Jury of Your Peers?
This guy is forced to plead guilty to a non-crime because if he dares go to trial and the Judge refuses to allow the jury to nullify this insane Starmmer law, then he will be given the maximum time of 7 years+ for demanding a fair trial.
Posted originally on Sep 23, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Thailand has become a case study for the use of biometric data in every facet of life. Every banking transaction is monitored and scrutinized. Any perceived discrepancy is flagged as fraud and punished without due process. Regulations have overwhelmed the system, resulting in a full-fledged banking crisis. Over three million Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning as a result of government overreach.
Transaction denied. You contact your bank to see why the payment failed only to learn that your account has been frozen–all of your accounts, for that matter. The bank is investigating you for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud. There was no warning call or letter and there is no clarification as to what transaction was flagged. You’re completely locked out of your accounts and have lost the ability to purchase. You cannot fill your gas tank, you cannot purchase groceries, you’ve been completely removed from the financial system, and do not know when or if you’ll regain access to your funds.
This is the reality for millions of people banking in Thailand. The Bank of Thailand (BoT), with the Cyber Crime Investigation Bureau and the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, began an excessive crackdown on perceived fraud and streamlined the process under the premise of safeguarding the banking sector. Thousands of accounts are frozen each week. Panic has ensued. Retailers are no longer accepting cards, demanding payment in cash as they, too, are worried that they will be removed from the banking system.
Assistant Governor of the BoT, Darunee Saeju, publicly stated that the central bank is working to “immediately unlock wrongly affected accounts.” Saeju insists that new measures will enable the banks to verify accounts in under 48 hours. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system evaporated. People rationally fear that their account will be targeted next, without warning. Government overreach has backfired, and the people are removing themselves from the banking system entirely.
This phenomenon is not limited to Thailand. Vietnam recently erased 86 million unverified bank accounts. Governments are demanding banks track every transaction, tracing each account back to individual citizens using biometric data. The government believes these provisions will prevent capital from leaving the radar and, therefore, taxation. Instead, governments are propelling the cycle amid this private wave, as the people cannot possibly trust the current financial system.
Posted originally on Sep 22, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Hepatitis B is transmitted through infected blood and bodily fluids, often through sexual intercourse. Why does the US health system insist that newborns receive a vaccination against an STD at birth? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine panel plans to re-evaluate the mandate.
The current recommendation states that newborns should be vaccinated against hepatitis B within the first 24 hours of birth. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, has delayed voting on updated guidelines due to the controversy.
The vaccine panel voted to recommend testing for hepatitis B in pregnant women as the disease can be transferred from mother to baby. Pharmaceutical company Merck, who recently moved a multi-million dollar facility from the UK to the US, insists the vaccine is safe and effective at birth. Yet, there are no concrete studies to show whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits.
This disease is not airborne nor can be passed through coughing, sneezing, or close contact. There must be an exchange of bodily fluid, and the primary infector here would be the mother (vertical transmission). If the disease cannot be spread through anything other than bodily fluid, why is the medical community insistent on a mandate? Parents should have the ability to chose the best course of action for their baby’s health.
Health complications from the vaccine are rare, but never zero. “Six studies reported serious adverse events (SAEs) such as the requirement for escalation of respiratory support. However, these occurred predominantly in high-risk infant populations and were rare (~1%),” a study published by the National Library of Medicine detailed. The study also notes a decreased risk of adverse side effects among newborns vaccinated after one week of birth. Yet, the study also explains the importance of catching the disease early. “Infection in the newborn or during early childhood leads to chronic hepatitis in 95% of infections, whereas infection acquired during adulthood is less likely to lead to chronic disease, with less than 5% of patients in this category.”
“I believe that this vaccine is absolutely critical for babies that are treated,” said member Retsef Levi, who has been vocal about his opposition to RNA vaccines. “But this notion that we sit here with very lousy evidence and argue there is no problem whatsoever [with administering the shot at birth] is not building trust, and it’s not scientific and it’s not what the public here should expect from us.”
The panel is considering updating the recommendation to infants at one month of age. “As people have asked, why would we pick one month? Why two? There’s no evidence that it’s safer at a later time,” Meissner said. “It’s an extremely safe vaccine, a very pure vaccine. So I think we will be creating new doubts in the minds of the public that are not justified.”
Others believe there is insufficient evidence. “I believe that there’s enough ambiguity here and enough remaining discussion about safety, effectiveness, and timing that I believe that a vote today would be premature,” Dr. Robert Malone said.
The bottom line is that we have a string of vaccines pushed upon the population from birth until death that have not been properly tested. Those who fund the studies also profit from the vaccinations, which is precisely the problem. Before Kennedy, no one questioned whether or not the guidelines coming from health agencies were backed by actual science. There were very few vaccination mandates for newborns a few decades ago, and now, babies in America receive FIFTEEN doses of vaccinations during their first year of life—and “the science” cannot clearly show whether these concoctions are “safe and effective.”
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 