The confidence in the entire EU government is rapidly collapsing. They desperately need a war with Russia to retain power. Here is a video of the speech on the floor of Parliament by the Croatian MEP Mislav Kolakušić with respect to the EU contract with Pfizer. It was done in secret and nobody was allowed to even vote on this issue – so much for our FAKE NEWS which sois hand-in-hand with our FAKE DEMOCRACY. They then ordered that we could even leave out home or work without a Pfizer vaccine. There will be a special place reserved in hell for both Urlsula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla – who is not even a doctor. He is only a vegetarian. I would let him even pet my dog.
Back in 2021, I warned that Socrates was suggesting that Pfizer would peak out and begin a serious decline. Many people wrote in and said I would be wrong. How can that happen when they bought every government on the planet? Even in August 2021, I warned, despite the criticism, that Pfizer would peak out and it did not look like the stock would continue a rally.
I’m sorry, but Socrates does not listen to MSNBC the most extreme left-wing propaganda machine destined to ruin every life in America if not the planet by supporting vaccines from Pfizer and of course war against everyone a Neocon can think of. Socrates was right. The glory days for Pfizer are over. I think whatever vaccines are left over, Pfizer should refund the money to all the taxpayers of the world and close the doors. It has become a corrupt organization and I for one would NEVER now agree to ANY vaccine produced by this evil empire. Senior management belongs in prison for life. Bankers may hurt people financially, but Pfizer, in my opinion, killed people to make money and physiologically damaged people forever. I still see some people wearing a mask in a car and driving by themselves.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house March 27, 2023 | Sundance
Put this in the ‘how far can we stretch a narrative’ file.
According to multiple sources, Ukraine is running out of ammunition in the war against Russia. However, according to Newsweek who is pushing the message from the Nordic Ammunition Supply Company, TikTok cat videos are to blame. Yes, you read that correctly…
(Newsweek) – One of Europe’s largest ammunition manufacturers has said it’s unable to expand to meet new quotas and respond to Ukraine’s increased demand because a nearby data center is using up all the electricity in the central Norway region to store TikTok videos.
The Norwegian group Nordic Ammunition Company, better known as Nammo, told the U.K. newspaper Financial Times that there’s no surplus of energy for its Raufoss plant, where the new factory was planned.
The electricity of the region is being used up by a data center whose bigger client is TikTok. The embattled social-media platform has come under increased scrutiny in the U.S. for its ties with China. “We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos,” Nammo chief executive Morten Brandtzæg told the newspaper.
Local energy provider Elvia confirmed to the Financial Times that the network has no electricity to spare, and that the energy is allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Should Nammo require more energy, it will take time to make this available to the ammunition manufacturer. (read more)
Europeans must immediately stop watching cat videos, in order to protect Ukraine.
[…] The very fact that Ukraine is out of ammunition proves that the West’s defeat in its self-declared “race of logistics” with Russia might already be a fait accompli by this point since it’s clear that Kiev can’t keep pace with its opponent despite being backed by all of NATO’s military-industrial capacity. Zelensky almost certainly didn’t realize that his candid admission essentially amounted to this, but it’s presently unclear whether the MSM will inform their audience about this or not.
On the one hand, doing so could contribute to his forthcoming begging campaign, but it could also backfire if taxpayers start asking whether it’s worth ponying up even more money if Ukraine already ran out of ammo despite the over $100 billion in aid that it’s received thus far. After all, if that astronomical sum wasn’t enough to keep their guns firing, then there’s no telling how much will be needed for Kiev to reconquer more of its lost territory like it intends to do. (more)
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Who is being irrational? The markets or the analysts?
KE
ANSWER: That’s simple. It is the analysts. The markets are ALWAYS correct. When you have bank failures unfolding, people will withdraw money out of caution. It is the very same reason there are ancient hoards of coins. You find coins in times of economic stress and uncertainty. This is a purely RATIONAL human response to uncertainty. It consistent for thousands of years. For any analyst to claim the markets are acting “irrationally” only proves they should look for another profession.
Sir Thomas Gresham began his career in 1543 working at Mercers’ Company at the age of 24 years old. He left England for Antwerp/Amsterdam which was the financial center of the day much like Wall Street. That was where he became a merchant businessman which was where banking existed in those days. He became an agent for King Henry VIII in the Antwerp/Amsterdam market. He became a trader and in so doing, he began to observe how capital moved.
The interesting aspect was that he was called in as a sort of crisis manager as I have been during financial upheavals. In 1551, Sir William Dansell, who was King’s Merchant there in the markets, ended up putting the English Government into a financial crisis thanks to his mismanagement. The English turned to Gresham for advice since he became quite astute at trading. They adopted his proposals. It was then that Gresham proposed a very ingenious tact. He advocated a FOREX intervention to push the pound higher on the Antwerp change. His intervention proved so successful that in just a few years King Edward VI had discharged almost all of his debts. By pushing the pound higher, he was able to repay the previous debts by devaluing them.
Therefore, the English Crown sought Gresham’s advice in all their finances until Mary came to the throne in 1553. Gresham was instantly pushed aside for Alderman William Dauntsey, who lacked trading experience and quickly sent the Crown into financial stress. Gresham was called back to deal with the mess once again.
Under Queen Elizabeth’s reign (1558–1603), he continued as a financial agent of the Crown and also became the Ambassador Plenipotentiary to the Governor of the Netherlands. This was the period of civil unrest in Antwerp which compelled him to return to England in 1567. This is also when the English had the founding of the Royal Exchange to compete with the Netherlands. It was Gresham who made the proposal to build, at his own expense, a bourse or exchange. This demonstrated that Gresham was a trader and understood how capital flowed. Apart from some small sums to various charities, Gresham bequeathed the bulk of his property (consisting of estates in London and around England giving an income of more than 2,300 pounds a year) to his widow and her heirs, with the stipulation that after her death his own house in Bishopsgate Street and the rents from the Royal Exchange should be vested in the Corporation of London and the Mercers Company, for the purpose of instituting a college in which seven professors should read lectures, one each day of the week, in astronomy, geometry, physic, law, divinity, rhetoric and music.[1] Thus, Gresham College, the first institution of higher learning in London, came to be established in 1597.
Gresham’s Law (stated simply as: “Bad money drives out good“). He concluded this from his observations that foreign exchange back then was based on the metal content and weight of the coinage. Therefore, as debasement took place, people would hoard the old coinage of higher quality and spend the debased. Thus, the bad money drove out the good and actually shrunk the money supply in circulation.
He urged Queen Elizabeth to restore the debased currency of England. In so doing, you got to repay old debts with debased currency. Governments to this day practice that same trick. Repaying a 30-year bond today the bondholder cannot buy what the money was once worth 30 years ago. The interest does not really compensate for the loss of purchasing power over long periods of time.
QUESTION: Hi. I do not understand why you keep advocating over and over how the depositors should be bailed out over 250k. It makes no sense from a moral hazard perspective. It is fact that should they do that, in spite of depositors signing agreements acknowledging that deposits over 250k would not be guaranteed, the Fed will also need to cancel all outstanding debt instruments, whose borrowers also signed an agreement that if they don’t pay they lose the asset. The moral hazard is so severe as to bloody the eyes. Why do you keep endorsing the bailout which will have to be at least initially funded by taxpayers even if they get the money back? The money to shore up bank reserves in exchange for collateral has to come from somewhere. What is the real fear, that people will move deposits direct to T-bills and in so doing, set up funding for a US CBDC? Please address the moral hazard aspect of your position. So far, I’ve heard nothing to defend the immorality of it.
FO ANSWER: Do not confuse a bank depositor with (1) an investor in a fund, or (2) bank shareholders & Management. A bank depositor is NOT an investor. The $250k is by NO MEANS sufficient for small businesses. They need to keep large amounts on hand for payroll etc. You do business and accept credit cards and they deposit that into your bank account.
Bank depositors are unsophisticated average people. The sophisticated investor moves their, money to a hedge fund or money market fund and fully understands that there is a risk associated with that investment. The bank depositor accepts no risk on any investment the bank makes. It does not give them, a piece of their profits. That goes to shareholders. It is a bailout of the entity and thus the shareholders which presents the moral hazard perspective.
If deposits in excess of $250 are NOT covered, you wipe out small businesses, they cannot pay employees and the ripple effect will be the total destruction of the entire economy. Your house will become worthless for its value will drop to only what someone can pay in cash.
There is a HUGE difference between investing and losing and simply depositing your money in a bank because we are moving to an electronic monetary system that there will be no way for a depositor to even demand money from a bank. Some are restricting wires to $3,000 and limiting the amount of cash one can withdraw. There is also not enough paper currency to facilitate bank withdrawal on a grand scale. Bank robbery will come to an end without cash.
None of that will unfold if a hedge fund fails. We must look deeper into this entire question.
QUESTION: Hello Martin, I have been reading you since your handwritten and from memory letters were getting out from your incarceration. You are truly an amazing man sir. I realize that both the Kondratieff and the Brenner cycles are mostly just coincidental to market cycles today but my question is are both the Kondratieff and the Brenner cycles still accurate for agriculture goods and the farm economy to this day? Thank you for your consideration of this question as well as for all the good you have done for mankind. Thank you. Respectfully, Mark
ANSWER: I think your question is very important. I have in my library Brenner’s actual publication. They are very rare, to say the least. Overlaying Brenner onto Wheat, we can see that during the 20th century, they did not work. The question then became why?
People are far too often confused when observing a market. They think that that instrument itself possesses some inherent trading character all by itself. I have often said that when I went to Economics class, the professor said there is no definable business cycle because everything is random. Then I went to Physics class and was told that nothing is random. I came to the conclusion that it was the economics professor who was wrong.
In Physics, we have two separate principles that are far too often confused as the same. The Uncertainty Principle was articulated by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976). It states that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature. Effectively, if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.
The Uncertainty Principle has been frequently confused with the Observer Effect whereby the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation takes place as the result of utilizing instruments that alter the state of what is being measured. To put this in common terms, let’s say you take a gauge to test the tire pressure on your car. The very act of measuring the air pressure results in some air escaping. Hence, the act of observing changes the actual pressure in the tire even minutely.
This is one of the most fascinating aspects of Physics. Here is my favorite cartoon explaining an important aspect of cyclical analysis as well.
So what does this have to do with analysis in markets? What are we actually observing? The innate object be it gold, wheat, or the stock market. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound? That all depends on your definition of a sound. If you define “sound” as requiring it to be heard by a person or animal, the answer is no. Yet is that the proper definition?
This brings us to Kondratieff and Benner waves. Were they actually measuring commodities, or were they measuring the cyclical interference of climate, war, and 70% of the GDP being confined to agriculture? We clearly have a problem with the human interpretation of an observation. We are then confined by our own prejudices formed in life. If we have NEVER read about war or experienced war, then is it possible to look at the 19th century and realize that there was an interference in the market behavior by war?
This is why fundamental analysis always fails. Claims that this is the guy who forecasts whatever based upon his opinion or fundamental analysis is simply nothing more than a broken clock is also correct twice a day. The vast array of fundamentals that are taking place simultaneously can never be sorted out by any human being. It depends upon the experience of the observer. I have often explained that people focus only domestically and often on whatever the Federal Reserve wants us to do. They do not see that in turn the Federal Reserve is influenced by international events. Thus, those who focus domestically, are blind to global trends. This is primarily why I developed Socrates for it is humanly impossible to monitor absolutely everything. No human being can do this and then it is impossible to sort out the fundamentals in advance – only hindsight. Many have ignored the fundamental approach and turned to Technical Analysis. Then the third branch is cyclical analysis focused on TIME.
Cyclical Analysis must also incorporate physics to achieve accuracy. Otherwise, someone who then identifies some cycle of 25 units and says see, it worked 5 times in a row, will lose the house for that relationship will change. This is the question of the Kondratieff and Brenner cycles. Kondratief saw broad cyclical trends throughout history. But they were averages and he did not seek a definitive time frequency. Brenner focused on sunspots and agriculture for he was a farmer and saw the cyclical patterns unfolding before him.
However, the complexity of the market and economic behavior is much like the double-slit realization. A single particle moving through a single slit produces a linear output. But when a second slit is introduced, then cyclical waves emerge. This illustrates the complexity. Each market is like a separate particle in that cartoon. By itself with a single slit, the outcome tends to be linear as expected. But adding that second slit produces complexity and cyclical wave interference. Thus, in analysis, we must consider the entire global basket of particles to approach the cyclical waves and interference.
There are so many layers to price activity each displaying a unique frequency. This once again comes down to human interpretation and can the analyst even see the complexity. Our arrays are the best shot at accurate cyclical forecasting and there are 72 models inside that – not a simple one-time frequency of a linear cycle. It is the computer that projects the outcome, not any human interpretation. Then you have to have a database that is unprecedented to back-test the entire analysis. Without recreating the monetary system of the world, it would be impossible for the computer to forecast war, the collapse of communism, or the 1929-style even in Tokyo in 1989.
Fundamental analysis can ONLY be used to explain AFTER the fact – not to forecast the future. Consequently, the Kondratieff and Brenner cyclical waves are not accurate in trying to predict the economy or the next great crash in markets. We must respect that they observed the top layer of cyclical activity, but behind that mask was climate change coming out of the last ice age, the wave of innovation that brought the Industrial Revolution which diminished the commodity influence, and war.
It is not that their work was wrong. They were the leaders in cyclical analysis and pointed the way. It simply required more exploration to understand the complexity and wave interference from the impact of everything, everywhere. The analysis of Benner failed during the 20th century because what he was observing was the complexity of the times and one really needed to sort out each and every component that produced the wave structure during the 19th century to be able to accurately forecast the 20th century.
Posted originally on the CTH on March 25, 2023 | Sundance
...”The GOPe doesn’t quite realize, Donald J Trump isn’t the cause of their failure; he is the result of their failure”…
Before getting to the latest developments regarding the worries of the mid-tier donor class within the Republican apparatus, I want to provide some context for the overall Ron DeSantis (RdS) management agenda.
I can trace the origin of the RdS 2024 scheme to an originating timeframe in late fall 2021. It may go back further than that, but it is at least in place by the late fall of 2021. That means that everything within the professional Republican apparatus, those who manipulate the political events from the controlling wing of the Republican side of the UniParty, had RdS ’24 as the agenda throughout the 2022 midterm calendar.
With that context, the events around the 2022 midterms and the surprising lack of professional Republican gains in the midterm election, start to take on an entirely new Machiavellian light. Not necessarily the RNC corporation; rather, the subsidiary weaponized groups including the Republican Governors Association and the Senate reelection schemes spearheaded by Mitch McConnell et al. In hindsight, those were all done with the context of laying the groundwork for ’22 MAGA defeat and ’24 RdS rise as an outcome.
Throughout the first half of 2022, I was saying there’s no way the GOPe wing would be this stupid. This was based primarily by my own filter saying there had to be a limit to what they think they can pull off.
The Wall St, K-Street, multinational and billionaire funding into RdS during the spring of 2022 was massive, but I held a primary prism that RdS himself had to be smart enough to know it was a suicide mission. However, with the events that unfolded in July and August of 2022, it became obvious that RdS was going all-in on a management program for a 2024 bid.
Perhaps taken in by the intoxicating allure of money, perhaps it didn’t take much convincing, I don’t know. But it was clear the ’24 race was the pretext for everything happening in/around the RdS orbit, including the 5-days in the bunker after the Mar-a-Lago raid and the rebranding national image launch thereafter.
We all know the GOPe operational motive for removing MAGA from the base of influence; it no longer needs to be repeated.
Quite simply the America First agenda puts *their* money at stake, and collectively that amounts to trillions of dollars in multinational globalist financial control. The scale of the money behind the MAGA opposition is really the biggest challenge; it is almost unfathomable, and that scale is represented within the size of the war chest they assembled for RdS.
The top of this financial pyramid holds a grip on political power that is threatened by the worldview, outlook and economic nationalist policy of Donald Trump. The top this system will not ‘lose’ with America-First Trump, they will only gain at a slower rate. This group will not leave their throne, they only see a slower assembling within their vaults.
The Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street and WEF crews will follow the policy and invest in America, they will just hate doing it. They will hate the best-play of slower gains because the returns are not as lucrative, expedient or fraught with the simple indulgences of their custom.
However, underneath that top-tier, there are many layers of vested financial interests at lesser but more generational risk. The Cornwallis crowd will see a much more difficult time with America-First in place advancing their affluence and influence. Loss for them changes things. This is the group being discussed by the NBC article.
Remember, ultimately despite the power dynamic, they are few – the MAGA army is many. It is within these mid-tier donor groups we now see worry about whether RdS can fulfill his assignment as protector of the realm.
WASHINGTON (NBC) – A number of the Florida governor’s donors and allies are worried his recent stumbles suggest he may not be ready for a brutal fight against Donald Trump. Some feel DeSantis needs to accelerate his timeline to run for the GOP presidential nomination and begin directly confronting Trump if he’s to have any chance of thwarting the former president’s momentum. Others believe DeSantis should sidestep Trump altogether and wait until 2028 to run.
At a Sunday luncheon following the annual Red Cross ball in Palm Beach, Florida, a group of 16 prominent Republicans, described by one attendee as a mix of DeSantis backers and Trump “skeptics,” discussed misgivings about the governor’s standing for the future if he tussles with the former president.
“They liked him — many of them might even support him,” the person who was at the event said of DeSantis. “But they thought on balance that his long-term future was better without him trying to take Trump head on.”
“He will get scarred up” by Trump, the person added.
Then there’s conservative billionaire shipping goods magnate Richard Uihlein and his wife, Elizabeth, whose $500,000 in combined contributions ranked them among the most generous donors to DeSantis’ 2022 re-election campaign. A person familiar with the strategy around Uihlein’s spending said that right now, “The brakes are pumped,” adding, “The polling really made different people pause.”
[…] A GOP strategist who has spoken directly with donors in Palm Beach said that this is a week that should be good for DeSantis, considering his chief rival for the nomination could be indicted any day now. And the fact that it’s been so tough for the governor has given some donors pause.
“DeSantis is doing a book tour. He’s barnstorming the country, and his polls are going down,” the strategist said. “Meanwhile, Trump’s potentially under indictment, and Trump’s going up. It’s just not a good look for DeSantis.”
This person added that donors who have given to DeSantis over the past year or two are still open to supporting him for president, but they’re also starting to take a look at other potential candidates like Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., as DeSantis has “fumbled” big moments. (read more)
The problem for the DeSantis management team is the running for office while pretending not to run. However, if RdS were to announce his intent, he would need to resign from the role of Florida Governor due to the “resign to run” rule. Conversely, if RdS asks the Florida legislature to change the rule, it becomes essentially an admission of his intent. It’s the same thing…. So, this annoying pretending -which is obvious- is starting to really annoy voters even more.
As I think back to my own viewpoint in early 2022, I have completely changed my opinion on Ron DeSantis as a smart politician. He is not as smart as I was giving him credit for. In fact, this entire RdS 2024 operation simply affirms they really are that stupid. Desperate and stupid.
Posted originally on the CTH on March 25, 2023 | Sundance
Dick Morris is a man who knows the machinery of the leftist state. As a life-long democrat operative, control agent and emissary of the Clinton machine, he is fully aware of the scheming and conniving ways of the Alinsky tribe.
Morris accurately encapsulates the leftist motive in their targeting of President Trump {Direct Rumble Link}. The accusations, charges, indictments and full-throated targeted efforts are intended to create a weaponized self-fulfilling prophecy. The abusers shout incessantly and condescendingly at the target, trying to provoke a reaction so that as soon as the angered response is delivered, they can say “see, we told you how violent and threatening you are“… WATCH:
For his weekly monologue, Neil Oliver ponders the collapse of checks and balances. The framework of new democratic norms where the government ruling elite police themselves and their conscripts for violations created by their own conduct.
Encapsulated within the question, “Who guards the guards,” Oliver outlines the answer is not within the question. It is not a matter of watching the guards, it is now time for people throughout the west to change the guards and throw out the self-policing bums. WATCH:
[Transcript] – Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guards?
The question was posed by the Roman satirist Juvenal 2,000 years ago, but it has never been more relevant. It’s applied now to remind us of the need to keep a watchful eye on those in power.
This should be our paramount concern now, when lies and liars are everywhere.
This week, former PM Boris Johnson told the House of Commons privileges committee he had not lied when he told the House that his own Covid guidance was being followed in No.10.
Note the word guidance – made especially interesting by the fact ordinary members of the public were, as I seem to recall, arrested, charged and fined for sitting together on park benches or on the beach. I’m not sure that’s how guidance normally works.
In any event, I honestly don’t care whether he lied or not to parliament. I don’t care if they were having cake or coke. This is a red herring, a sleight of hand, a tactic to distract the gullible. The point that must neither be overlooked nor forgotten is that neither Johnson nor anyone else at those gatherings was demonstrably afraid of Covid.
We know that because we have seen the photos of them standing together without masks. Standing apart and wearing masks was for the little people. We might also assume that we were being laughed at by those who knew there was nothing to fear and therefore no reason not to party.
Keir Starmer’s Labour party was the same – we saw those pictures too. He and they called for earlier, longer, harder lockdowns and all the rest, and then met for curry and beer and cosy chats.
Fear was for the little people and so Left and Right, Blue and Red and all positions and team colours in between laughed up their sleeves as the nudge units and the paid propagandists told us anyone breaching the regulations – sorry, I mean guidance – was a granny killing Covidiot and Pandemic Denier.
Look me in the eye and tell me it wasn’t so.
So, who guards the guards, who watches the watchers?
Let’s notice, among much else, that this is the Commons sitting in judgment on the Commons, which is to say politicians sitting in judgement on politicians. This is the guards, judging the guards. This is the same Commons whose inhabitants worked together in unquestioning lockstep to impose policies that ruined lives, wrecked livelihoods and upended the economy. This is the same Commons that, far from accepting responsibility for the carnage, is actively seeking to have us look the other way while they get about the business of doing nothing more than playing politics, all they’re fit for, fiddling while Rome burns. The is the same Commons that empties when one of their own stands to speak up on behalf of people killed or harmed by medical products pushed as vaccines. And trust me, I’ll get back to that safe and effective nonsense they pushed in a moment.
We never quite got to mandated jabs for all, but people all over the world were sacked for opting to live by the ideal of my body my choice, the notion enshrined in the Nuremberg Code that states that a person should at all times: “Have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other forms of constraint or coercion …”
We didn’t quite get to mandates for the jabs for the general population, but I say it was a damned close-run thing. I say they were itching to mandate the vaccines. I say mandates weren’t pushed across the line in the end because enough of us made plain it would mean civil disobedience if not full-on civil war. I maintain that while they’ve gone quiet about lockdowns and face-masks, it can only be a matter of time before that playbook is brought out for the next crisis they can cook up. More and more are queuing up to distance themselves from the harms done during the last three years, while still priapic on account of all that unbridled power over the everyday lives of the tax-paying public.
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
There are calls for a war crimes trial for Putin. What about a war crimes trial for Tony Blair while we’re at it? We hit the 20th anniversary of his unlawful war in Iraq last week – that unlawful war that led to over a million deaths, that destabilised the entire region to this day and gave birth to Isis. Wouldn’t the moral way to mark that birthday be a war crimes trial for all the people who took us there? And while we’re considering war crimes trials, shouldn’t we look again at precisely what successive United States administrations did in Korea, in Vietnam, and more recently in Libya, and in Syria and in Afghanistan and other sovereign nation-states too numerous to mention? Shouldn’t we look at what was done, and by whom?
US libertarian think tank the Cato Institute recently looked again at the behaviour of successive US presidents in relation to the Saudi Arabian horror show in Yemen. They reported, and suggested the appropriateness of war crimes trials for Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden:
“Whose administrations serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, schools.
“Whose administrations serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, school buses and other civilian targets, gave intelligence used for targeting and for a time refuelled Saudi and Emirati aircraft.”
“US officials could not claim to be surprised at their culpability,” they added. “The state department warned that they could be held responsible for war crimes.”
“George W Bush is another good candidate for a trial on his aggressive unjustified attack on Iraq based on manipulated and fabricated intelligence. His war ended up killing hundreds of thousands of civilians as well as triggering years more of conflict. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair today spending his golden years profiting after acting as Bush’s poodle would be an appropriate co-conspirator.”
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
We are trained to fear Global warming … the warming of the planet … while that world burns still on account of the fire Tony Blair helped light in the Middle East with UK taxpayer-funded missiles and bombs.
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
Let’s look again at the banks and the simmering chaos there … in that world in which banks are secretive, privately owned businesses, in which central banks have the power to create money out of thin air and lend the same sums over and over and over again while growing fatter and fatter on more and more interest and debt. Another former PM, Gordon Brown traded on and perpetuated a myth of being a safe pair of hands when it came to money matters. This is the same Gordon Brown who sold off half of the UK’s gold reserves at a knockdown price so low it was remembered ever after as the Brown Bottom and one of the worst deals in recorded history.
In 2008 Brown bailed out the banks with billions and billions of pounds worth of our money and those banks duly stayed open, the bankers kept getting their bonuses and nothing changed when it came to stopping their reckless games with fantasy money. We were sold down the river and now the banks are shaking on their fantasy foundations once again and for more of the same reasons.
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
The MHRA – the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is supposed to monitor the information we get about health and the safety and effectiveness of the drugs we are offered. But the MHRA gets 86 percent of its funding from the pharmaceuticals industry. Is that the recipe for unbiased behaviour always and only in the interests of the people? I’m only asking.
It’s the same the world over: 65 percent of the US Federal Drugs Administration comes from Big Pharma. Between 2006 and 2019, nine out of 10 FDA Commissioners went on to secure jobs with pharmaceutical companies. 89 percent of the European Medicines Agency funding comes from Big Pharma. 96 percent of the funding for the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia comes from Big Pharma. In Japan, the relevant agency gets 85 percent of its funding from Big Pharma.
No lesser publication than the British Medical Journal asked, in a headline over a recent article:
“From FDA to MHRA – are drug regulators for hire?’
Obviously, I couldn’t possibly say one way or the other. A recent report from Australia’s TGA – the Therapeutic Goods Administration – equivalent to our MHRA – a report made available only by a Freedom of Information Request – makes plain that in January 2021 it was known to anyone privy to Pfizer’s own data that the lipid nanoparticle was widely distributed all around the body.
All of this was known before the so-called vaccines were approved for injection into billions of human beings, from babies up. Those entrusted with our health care knew, in advance, that the tiny oily bubbles carrying the making of the toxic spike protein could and would go to brains, hearts, livers, ovaries, testes, everywhere, and they went right ahead and did it anyway.
Safe and effective they said, over and over and over. Misinformation, anyone?
If they were doing their jobs and reading reports like this, then Chris Whitty would have known, Patrick Vallance would have known, Antony Fauci would have known.
This information is out there now, in the public domain, though heavily redacted – and God alone knows what remains redacted – and so why isn’t this front page and main TV news all around the world? Why not?
Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?
The answer is as stark as it is depressing:
Westminster awards itself the power to make laws, enforce those laws and decree the punishment for any transgressions of those laws. This is a textbook definition of the tyranny that our constitution, enshrined in Magna Carta 1215, was specifically shaped to prevent. And yet here we are – with the watchers watching the watchers, the guards guarding the guards.
It is as obvious as Boris Johnson’s estrangement from the truth that this tyranny should never have been allowed to evolve and that, since it has, we must not tolerate it a moment longer.
Decisions of importance must be made by those with skin in the game, but with no means to profit either directly or indirectly from the decisions they come to.
Who guards the guards is a 2,000-year-old question. Older by 500 years is the Tao Te Ching, The Book of the Way, by Laozi, the Old Master.
Last week a friend reminded me of words that sound as though they might have been written this morning:
“When rich speculators prosper while farmers lose their land. When government officials spend money on weapons instead of cures. When the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible while the poor have nowhere to turn. All this is robbery and chaos.”
Robbery and chaos – that’s what our leaders and their little wizards have inflicted upon us. It was true two and a half thousand years ago and it’s still true now.
That old book also warns us about:
“Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power … They take from those who don’t have enough and give to those who have far too much.”
This is how we will beat them, how we will win – by remembering what our ancestors learned long ago and finally, finally doing something about it.
Here’s the thing: it’s long past time to watch the guards. What we need, all over the West and once and for all, is a changing of the guards.
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 