Thursday, April 22, 2021

"Time to Separate Money and State"

"Time to Separate Money and State"
by Brian Maher

"Would a man trust a fox to mind his hens? Would he trust a dog to mind his dinner? Would he trust a thief to mind his store? Then why would he trust the government to mind his money? “Man needs more to be reminded than to be instructed,” argued Samuel Johnson. A man knows his nose squats in the middle of his face. He looks right past it just the same. Today we remind men of the reason they initially chose gold and silver money - that is, why they initially selected sound money.

Long-suffering readers are familiar with our… diminished regard for paper money. Paper money - or digital money nowadays - is the great bogeyman of the boom/bust cycle. It inflates bubbles of every model and make. But men did not choose sound money to block bubbles…

Sound Money Belongs In the Same Class With Political Constitutions and Bills of Rights: Men chose sound money to fortress themselves against government mischiefs and criminalities. Governments cannot print gold. They cannot print silver. Thus their hands are bound. The titan Austrian school economist, Ludwig von Mises: "It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights."

Church and state are famously separate in these United States. We would separate money and state with equal ruthlessness. For a state minding money is a fox minding the henhouse. Deny it the privilege, and you deny it its natural rascality. Consider one example…

Get Lost, King: In 1392, England’s King Henry III was in arrears to the Pope in Rome… and required 1,000 pounds towards satisfaction of his debt. He did not have it. So old Henry was forced to appear before the citizens of London with an open hat. Moreover, they refused him.

Can you imagine a president of the United States upon his knees before the citizens of Washington… begging? And these same citizens instructing him to move along? When citizens control the purse strings, they control their destiny. When government controls the purse strings, the government controls the citizens’ destiny.

Did the United States president come before the American people in 2008 and plead for money to rescue the banks? We do not recall the request. Yet the government got its money from its central bank - trillions and trillions. The Founders knew…

What Happened to the Constitution? They knew the excesses of paper money so well… they welded sound money into the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…” But no “parchment barrier” could forever constrain men determined not to be constrained.

In 1900, total government spending came in under 3% of the gross domestic product. Government’s bite was so weak… it failed to break the skin. But then the 20th century barreled in with its wars… its social movements… and its cranks… In 1917, Mr. Wilson ordered the doughboys across the ocean… and into the trenches.

Government spending - again, as a percentage of GDP - vaulted near 20%. The following Great Depression set the government loose, a child amok in a candy factory. By the end of the Second World War, government spending scaled 45% of GDP - the arsenal of democracy was not cheap.

Government Spending Is Still at WWI Levels: Government spending as a percentage of GDP has averaged roughly 20% since 1980. That is, it has averaged WWI levels. The figure has run higher at times. It has run lower at times. But 20% is about par. Now mix in state and local government spending. You will find that total government spending presently nears 40% of GDP.

Now Mr. Biden and mates plan to expand government spending to extravagant - to obscene - dimensions. It goes without mentioning… we will mention it regardless… that a government constrained by gold cannot spend extravagantly or obscenely. Not unless it is in possession of extravagant or obscene quantities of gold. The United States government is not.

No Thanks, Says Gold: As we have written before: Gold is a famously uncooperative agent of change. It resists social uplift. It has the public spirit of an alley cat. Gold is timid… and turns away from the sound of trumpets. “You go over there,” gold says. “I’ll stay here.”

“The trouble with gold is that it turns its back on world improvers, empire builders and do-gooders,” as wrote Bill Bonner and our leader Addison Wiggin in Empire of Debt. “The nice thing about gold is that it is so unresponsive,” they continued. “It neither laughs nor applauds.” Instead it shrugs its shoulders… folds its arms… and drags its feet. That is precisely why it could not last…

Public-Minded Money: As we have also explained before... Only a debt-backed system of paper money could finance the great wars, the social improvements and the fevered passions of the 20th century. This money is ideal for public service. Unlike gold, it is civic-minded. It has a heart. It follows orders. Whatever war, whatever boondoggle, whatever swindle it is told to get behind… it will get behind.

Fiat money willingly sacrifices its value for the greater good. In short: Paper money fuels government as oxygen fuels fire. This United States dollar has sacrificed some 97% of its value since the Federal Reserve’s 1913 demon birth. The greatest plummets came after 1971 - when Old Nixon severed the dollar’s last chain link to gold. One 2021 dollar purchases only 15% of the 1971 dollar. That is, the 1971 dollar did the duty of six-plus 2020 dollars. Is this the stability the Federal Reserve assumes as its mandate? It is a very strange stability if so.

Which Gold Standard? Do we propose a return to the gold standard? The answer is yes. And the answer is no. We propose a private gold standard, established and governed by the free market. Let the market sort the details. We would deny the government all say, all influence. We would block every route in.

Economist Gary North: "A government-guaranteed gold standard is a rotten idea. It is just a little better than a fiat-money standard. But advocates of "the gold standard" almost always mean "a government-guaranteed gold standard." Therein lies the problem. Governments lie. They cheat. They steal…

A government-guaranteed gold standard is a fool's gold standard... There are two kinds of gold standards: government-guaranteed and privately administered. The first is a counterfeit of the second. The politicians set up the rubes to be skinned.

The private gold standard places the monetary authority in the hands of the citizen. He claps golden handcuffs upon his government. He guards the Treasury.

Take Back Control: But WWI struck the handcuffs from government wrists... and changed the Treasury guard: "When the public had access to gold coins prior to 1914, individuals controlled banking policy. They also controlled government fiscal policy. They could take their coins out of commercial banks if they did not approve of government policy. This is why national governments annul or restrict gold-coin redeemability whenever a major war breaks out. They do not want to face the citizens' veto.

With the repudiation of any gold-coin standard since 1914, citizens no longer understand the case for a gold-coin currency. They do not understand that widespread gold ownership was the number one restraining factor on the expansion of state power in the economy. The uncoordinated individual decisions of millions of people could overturn any government policy that required central bank inflation to fund it. The politicians resented this. So did the central bankers.

They denied citizens their gold coins and veto power over government policy. They never restored it: They refused to return to the prewar gold-coin standard in 1918. Politicians and bankers did not want to transfer this power back to the masses. Once the central banks in every nation stole the gold from commercial banks, who had stolen the gold coins of the depositors by breaking the contracts of full gold-coin redemption on demand, the political elite never again let the masses have their coins. It is high time the American people reclaim our gold coins - and our grip upon the nation’s purse strings. That is, it is high time to remind the government who bosses whom…"

Good luck...

"This Very Moment..."

“Hope is always about the future. And it isn’t always good news. Sometimes, hope can imprison us with belief or expectation that something will happen in the future to change our lives. Similarly hopelessness isn’t always about despair. Hopelessness can bring us right into this very moment and answer all of life’s most difficult questions. Who am I? Where am I? What does this mean? And what now?”
- Daniel Gottlieb

"On The Road… to Ruin"

"On The Road… to Ruin"
by Bill Bonner

YOUGHAL, IRELAND – “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” said Scottish economist Adam Smith in 1777. Today, we begin a long ramble down the road to ruin to look at how much ruin there is.

The trial of Derek Chauvin, a white former police officer in Minneapolis, for the murder of George Floyd, a black man, brought out hints of the ruin to come. On the Trumpified right, a man in a police uniform can do no wrong. He is the avatar of law and order… of stability… the Praetorian Guard protecting the status quo and exalting the power and glory of the people who control it. But since the Trumpistas are no longer running the show, the more immediate danger has shifted to the other side – the zealots on the Biden bandwagon.

Process Before Outcome: On the left, it was proclaimed high and low that Mr. Floyd died because of systemic racism. Joe Biden said he prayed for a guilty verdict. This was a remarkable admission… as if he had no faith in his government’s criminal justice process. But in a civilized society, the process is more important than the outcome. The justice system is based on the idea that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. No one knows in advance. If they did, why bother with a trial at all?

Instead, a trial – like a market or an election – is designed to discover something – the truth. Until discovered, it is unknown. Biden didn’t think he had to wait. He hadn’t attended a single day of testimony, but he was sure he knew the correct verdict. Nancy Pelosi – perhaps drawing on her early years at Notre Dame (a Catholic girls’ high school in Baltimore) – saw Floyd’s death in Biblical terms. He had “sacrificed” himself, she said, so that others might have life and have it more abundantly… Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice. Huh? Was it worth dying just to convict Derek Chauvin? Why not just not die and leave Chauvin a free man?

Collective Responsibility: The “sacrifice” idea only makes sense if the goal goes far beyond putting Chauvin behind bars. Contrary to the Christian faith, and to thousands of years of jurisprudential, moral, and philosophical enlightenment, today’s activists want to put a whole race of people – whites – on trial. They are responsible, say the prosecutors, not only for Floyd’s death, but for a long list of crimes, from slavery to Nagasaki.

Communism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Nazism, Brutalism in art and architecture, sugary cereal, plastic in the ocean – the white race is where the buck stops for them all. The typical white man is flummoxed. He doesn’t hate Black people. He didn’t kill George Floyd or throw a plastic water bottle in the Pacific. Why should he take the rap?

Individual Responsibility: But collective guilt has a long and sordid history. At the time of the Great Sacrifice – the crucifixion – Pontius Pilate asked the Jews if they wanted him to release Jesus. No, they replied. They preferred to have Barabbas – a thief – spared. As for Jesus: “Crucify him. Crucify him. His blood is on us and on our children!”

Jesus had made it clear – especially in his story of the “good Samaritan” – that all people would be judged by God individually. It didn’t matter that he was a Samaritan; he who had come to the aid of the man in need, while others passed him by. The law, too, has long recognized that people should be held accountable for their own crimes, not for those of others.

Collective Guilt: But civilization walks backward from time to time. Centuries after the crucifixion of Christ, pogroms against Jews were excused as “justice” for the collective guilt they bore. Taking it a step further, in Poland during World War II, the Nazis made it a collective crime to give aid or comfort to Jews. Not only would the person who committed the infraction be punished, but so would his whole family. Likewise, when a German soldier was killed by Polish partisans, a whole town might be massacred in reprisal.

And now, collective guilt is back. “White privilege” is to blame for everything from higher COVID-19 death rates in Black neighborhoods to higher incomes in white ones. (Dear, long-suffering readers must be wondering what this has to do with the economy… But hold on… we’re getting there.)

Any Means Necessary: When civilization goes into reverse, the means get upstaged by the ends. People lose confidence in the integrity of the process; they want results. If what is most important to you is ending systemic racism, for example, or saving the planet… or winning a war against terrorists… or preventing a bear market on Wall Street, for that matter… you might very well conclude that any means necessary is okay. Murder? Theft? Counterfeiting? Price fixing? Redistributing income? Sure, why not?

In the news yesterday was this report from Business Insider: "Warren Buffett caught the attention of the World Economic Forum’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab, who said he’d like to “have a discussion” with the billionaire investor." Uh oh. Schwab wants to give Buffett a good “talking to.” Why? Berkshire Hathaway CEO Buffett is not on board with using shareholder money to signal management’s virtue: "Last year, Buffett said companies should focus on creating shareholder value, and not invest in social causes like climate change. “This is the shareholders’ money,” he said."

Schwab said the “art of good management today is to create a balance” between shareholders, and stakeholders, as in society as a whole. He said for companies not buying into the stakeholder concept, they’re going to be “on the wrong side of history.

Why Hold Back? Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen lit up like a lighthouse. Reuters reports: "U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Wednesday pledged to aggressively tackle climate change using all the tools at her disposal, warning that a failure to do so effectively and promptly could undermine economic growth. “We are committed to directing public investment to areas that can facilitate our transition to net-zero and strengthen the functioning of our financial system so that workers, investors, and businesses can seize the opportunity that tackling climate change presents,” Yellen said."

When you think you know what is most important, you’re not going to let a few ancient rules stand in the way, are you? And when you think you know how to improve the world – for you have the TRUTH – why hold yourself back? Why not insist that everyone and everything get in line? More to come… on the road to ruin…"

'How It Really Is"

"Economic Market Snapshot 4/22/21"

"Economic Market Snapshot 4/22/21"
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will
do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
- John Maynard Keynes
"Down the rabbit hole of psychopathic greed and insanity...
Only the consequences are real - to you!
Your guide:
Gregory Mannarino, AM 4/22/21:

"UPDATES: The Economic FREE-FALL 

Continues And Central Banks Are Buying It All

"The more I see of the monied classes, 
the better I understand the guillotine."
- George Bernard Shaw
MarketWatch Market Summary, Live Updates

CNN Market Data:

CNN Fear And Greed Index:
A comprehensive, essential daily read.
April 21st to 23rd, Updated Daily 
Financial Stress Index
"The OFR Financial Stress Index (OFR FSI) is a daily market-based snapshot of stress in global financial markets. It is constructed from 33 financial market variables, such as yield spreads, valuation measures, and interest rates. The OFR FSI is positive when stress levels are above average, and negative when stress levels are below average. The OFR FSI incorporates five categories of indicators: credit, equity valuation, funding, safe assets and volatility. The FSI shows stress contributions by three regions: United States, other advanced economies, and emerging markets."
Daily Job Cuts

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

"Farmers Warn That The Megadrought In The Western U.S. Threatens To Cause Devastating Crop Failures"

Full screen recommended.
"Farmers Warn That The Megadrought In The 
Western U.S. Threatens To Cause Devastating Crop Failures"
by Epic Economist

"Droughts are not uncommon in the history of the U.S., however, what the western half of the country has been experiencing right now is extremely worrying. Recent reports have been warning that a “megadrought” is fast spreading in the southwestern region and is it leading to the worst crop failures in decades. States like North Dakota are seeing the most devastating drought disaster in over 126 years. Farmers are having to abandon their entire pastures since the soil is lacking sufficient moisture to sustain normal crop development growth. Summer-like temperatures, turbulent winds, and low humidity across the state accelerated drying conditions, and at least half the state is now experiencing “severe drought”.

Most people from other regions may not realize how this would affect them, but the truth is that what is going on in the Upper Midwest, the Northern Plains states, and the Prairie provinces of Canada will have a great impact on everyone's lives as much of the food we eat comes from that region. According to "MordernFarmer," it is the most important agricultural area for spring wheat, the higher-gluten variety that’s used for pasta or mixed with other wheat for all-purpose flour. Consequently, food prices - which have already exploded in recent weeks - are likely to climb even higher due to widespread shortages.

In California, one of the most important agricultural states, traders are saying that due to the extreme dry temperatures, the futures prices of both spring wheat and canola are at their highest in years. And if it doesn’t rain soon, things are bound to get much worse over the next few months. A Texan farmer named Blake Fennell said in an interview that “if we don't get any significant rainfall within the next two, three, or four weeks, it's going to have a very significant impact on the cotton crop in West Texas. Abandonment looks like it's going to be pretty high this year, just for the simple fact that there is no ground moisture to get this crop emerged,” he added.

At this point, the entire state of Texas is experiencing some level of drought, and on the border of Oregon and California, water levels are so low farmers won’t get enough to meet their needs. Many of them will have to shut down their operations and lay-offs their employees, as there will be no way to save their crops. In many locations, water allocation was reduced up to 95 percent. According to the Fresno County Farm Bureau CEO, Ryan Jacobsen, the lack of wet weather means the garlic, tomatoes, onions, melons, and rice crops will have to be reduced.

As a result, food production in 2021 will sharply fall due to such epic crop failures. Meanwhile, water shortages are also a possibility, considering that some key reservoirs are registering the lowest water levels ever, which could trigger widespread water cutbacks. To call this a disaster is a huge understatement. This crisis will aggravate a serious of other problems in the U.S. food supply chain. Farmers, ranchers, and local authorities are already starting to panic. And as this megadrought continues to get worse, life is about to dramatically change all over the nation, and that is going to deeply affect all of us."

Gregory Mannarino, PM 4/21/21: "Updates Plus! JPM Warns On Bitcoin Collapse. Silver Takes Off"

Gregory Mannarino, PM 4/21/21:
"Updates Plus! JPM Warns On Bitcoin Collapse. Silver Takes Off"

"Doug Casey on the Shocking 2025 Deagel Forecast... War, Population Reduction and the Collapse of the West"

"Doug Casey on the Shocking 2025 Deagel Forecast...
War, Population Reduction and the Collapse of the West"
by International Man

"International Man: Deagel is a private online source for the military capabilities of the world’s nation-states. It recently released a shocking five-year forecast. The report analyzes countries by projected population size, GDP, defense budget, and more. In it, they predict a 70% reduction in the size of the United States population. This is a bold prediction. What are your thoughts on this?

Doug Casey: I’ve got to say that I wasn’t familiar with Deagel - it keeps a low profile. Deagel is in the same business as Jane’s - which has been in the business of analyzing weapons systems for many decades.

A look at the Deagel website, which is quite sophisticated, makes it clear we’re not dealing with some blogger concocting outrageous clickbait. It seems to be well-connected with defense contractors and government agencies like the CIA. They’ve predicted that about 70% of the US population, and about the same percentage in Europe, is going to disappear by 2025. It’s hard to believe that anybody in their position would make a forecast like that. There’s no logical business reason for it, especially since it was done before the COVID hysteria gripped the world. It stretches a reader’s credulity.

Could it possibly happen? It would be the biggest thing in world history. Does it have a basis in reality, or is it just some bizarre trolling exercise? I’m not sure - it’s hard to take almost anything from any source at face value these days. But for the last several years, I’ve been saying that World War III would basically be a biological war. Of course, it will have substantial conventional, nuclear, space-based, and AI/computer elements as well, but its most serious component will be biological. Essentially, it will involve the use of bacteria and viruses to wipe out the enemy. The odds are that it will be between the US and China. But since anyone with a CRISPR in their garage can hack the genome and DNA of almost anything and anybody… there are no limits to the possibilities.

Certainly, from the Chinese point of view, a biological war makes all the sense in the world. That’s because the Han Chinese share a lot of genetic similarities. Presumably, a bacteria or virus can be bred to favor the Chinese and take out most everybody else. The fact is that anything that can be done eventually will be done. It’s just the law of large numbers.

Somebody might respond, "Well, that's horribly racist." Of course it's racist. Notwithstanding rational and philosophical arguments against it, all ethnic groups and countries are quite naturally racist. A fear of different racial and ethnic groups has been bred into humans, as a survival mechanism, over the hundreds of thousands of years since we became biologically modern. All races and ethnic groups like to think that they're "the best" or the most worthy, and that non-members are "other", perhaps only marginally human. Biological warfare plays directly into feeling.

Americans who - like everybody else - see themselves as "the good guys", believe we’re immune to that. However, don’t forget that the US pioneered modern biowarfare. Fort Detrick, Maryland, has been an epicenter of it for over 70 years, and there are undoubtedly many other more clandestine sites where US government agencies are working on biological warfare. No doubt the Chinese and other major powers are working clandestinely as well. It’s not something anybody wants to advertise for many reasons.

What shocks me is not that a biowar is being researched or even actively wargamed, but that a connected organization like Deagel is actually saying it publicly. It’s not like what goes on in the spook community is an open book. Deagel doesn’t explicitly say what, exactly, will cause the great die-off. But there are many advantages to biological warfare over other types of warfare, so it will probably be featured. It’s probably inevitable, now that the technology has made it practical.

What are the advantages of biowar? What might wargaming generals like about it? First, it doesn’t destroy materiel. That’s a huge plus. After all, what’s the point of conquering a country if all you have to show for it is a smoking radioactive ruin? That’s the major advantage of the neutron bomb, of course; it kills the people but limits damage to buildings. Bioweapons essentially make atomic weapons obsolescent.

Second, bioweapons can be structured to attack only certain racial groups. That’s potentially either a big advantage or disadvantage to China. The diverse population of the US could also be either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on who strikes first. But, on the bright side, you can perhaps immunize your own population, or at least the military and "essential" workers, to control the damage.

Third, bioweapons are very cheap and easy to fabricate. Anyone with access to a good high school chemistry lab is in business. There’s no need for expensive and tricky U-235 or, for that matter, any of the junk toys the Pentagon spends hundreds of billions on.

Fourth, bioweapons don’t need sophisticated delivery systems; again, no need for B-2s, B-52s, cruise missiles, ICBMs, or any of that. A sick tourist or two, or a few packages sent in the mail, can get the job done.

Fifth, bioweapons, whether they’re viruses or bacteria, not only offer plausible deniability but the potential to blame a third party. You can launch an attack, and nobody can really be sure who did it. Or even that an attack is, in fact, being launched.

There’s every advantage to biological warfare from an aggressor's point of view. And, the aggressor doesn’t even have to be a nation-state, which is, of course, another excuse for governments to further clamp down on their populations, as COVID has shown. Guns are good self-defense weapons, and governments are trying to eliminate them; basement biowar labs are strictly offensive. Imagine the bureaucratic enforcement possibilities.

International Man: In addition, Deagel included a lengthy disclaimer, which states: "After COVID, we can draw two major conclusions: 

1. The Western world success model has been built over societies with no resilience that can barely withstand any hardship, even a low-intensity one. It was assumed, but we got the full confirmation beyond any doubt. 
2. The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through the so-called Great Reset."

Doug, you’ve written extensively about the economic, political, cultural, and social decline in the US- long before it became a popular topic of discussion. Has anything changed in your perspective on the future of the US?

Doug Casey: No. I’m afraid the election of actual Bolsheviks in 2020 - and I don’t use that term lightly - has sealed its fate. Not to mention that the nomenklatura in most major cities and states are cut from the same cloth. In point of fact, the US is on such a self-destructive path that the Chinese don’t have to do anything in order to win. All they need to do is lay back and be quiet. The West is destroying itself.

As for this COVID crisis, it impresses me as 80% hysteria, a bad flu season that has been blown out of proportion. It’s well known (insofar as anything can be known, considering the abysmal quality of reporting and the extreme politicization of the issue) that COVID mainly affects the elderly, the sick, and the obese. The average age of descendants is 80; however, the ages of those who die are rarely mentioned. The media reports the number of COVID cases constantly, but that’s as meaningless as counting who gets a common cold. Anyway, aren’t all those who get infected become immune? A virus - like the Hong Kong flu, the Asian flu, the Bird flu, and the Swine flu - goes viral, then goes away. Even the Spanish flu, which was actually serious, came and went without destroying the economy. Nonetheless, the public has been so terrorized that they’re panicking to take potentially dangerous experimental injections. Even though there are numerous cheap drugs that can mitigate the virus after diagnosis, they’re never prescribed. The opinions of physicians and world-class scientists who differ with Fauci - an overpaid lifelong government employee - are actively suppressed. However, this is a whole different subject.

There is one thing I question about Deagel’s statement that you quoted: "The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through something called the Great Reset." That’s a very odd statement because the crisis isn’t extending the life of the dying economic system. It’s putting the final nail in its coffin. It would be nice to hear how they figure that out, as COVID seems to be medically vastly overblown. The Great Reset has nothing to do with preserving the current economic system; it’s about formalizing a new one.

Here’s a wild and crazy thought. What if the real problem isn’t so much the COVID virus itself. What if the real problem is the new vaccines. What if, after X number of months or years, they turn out to have very deadly effects? There’s a reason new drugs are tested over a period of years, which is far from the case here. Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and numerous others who think they’re "elite" have long said that the earth’s population ought to be reduced radically, perhaps by 80%. Is it too shocking to believe that some group would take advantage of this to cull the human population? It’s something that would be hard to believe even in a science fiction novel. But it now appears to be technically feasible. History is replete - overrun, actually - with psychos who try to destroy everybody once they get in power.

In point of fact, science fiction is a much better predictor of the future than any think tank has ever been. So maybe there’s a Dr. Evil at large, anxious to eliminate deplorables and other undesirables. If he exists, I doubt today’s woke transgender version of James Bond can counter him. Who knows where this is going? But it’s the wrong direction, and the trend is still accelerating.

International Man: The disclaimer in the Deagel report goes on to say, "The collapse of the Western financial system - and ultimately the Western civilization - has been the major driver in the forecast along with a confluence of crisis with a devastating outcome. As COVID has proven Western societies embracing multiculturalism and extreme liberalism are unable to deal with any real hardship." Is the Western civilization seeing a confluence of crises coming together in a perfect storm?

Doug Casey: That’s a very good point. It seems like everything is starting to happen at once and at a hyperbolically accelerating rate. While the worlds of science and technology are approaching Ray Kurzweil’s utopian Singularity, the worlds of politics and sociology are approaching a dystopian anti-Singularity.

Let’s briefly look at the financial, economic, social, and political aspects of the potential collapse. We’re absolutely en route to a gigantic financial crisis, featuring the destruction of the US dollar. And with it, the savings of a large percentage of the planet’s people will be impoverished because their savings are in dollars. Much of the value people thought they had in stocks, bonds, real estate, pensions, and insurance could disappear.

That's bad enough, but what’s worse are the economic consequences. We're likely to see wholesale unemployment, a collapse in business activity, and corporate bankruptcies, even while taxes go up radically. I’m increasingly of the opinion there will be a crack-up boom along the way; however, we might be entering that as we speak.

What’s even worse are the social ramifications, such as critical race theory, which emphasizes the differences between race groups, creating actual race hatred. One consequence of the financial and economic upsets will be riots like those of 2020. The mass migration of people from alien cultures who don't share Western values into the US and Europe is destabilizing. The US has, in fact, become a multicultural domestic empire.

The political consequences are evident. The Biden people in Washington, D.C. are exactly the same personality types who took over Russia in 1917 or France in 1789. They aren’t going to let go of the apparatus of power now that they've got it. They will find a way to re-install themselves in 2024.

What about the military? The US spends something like $1 trillion on defense annually, but nobody knows for certain. These budgets are complicated; military spending is hidden here, there, and everywhere. It doesn't defend the United States; it just antagonizes foreigners. It’s also interesting that the Department of Defense is now trying to root out conservative political views from the rank-and-file soldiers.

But let’s get back to what could collapse the populations of North America and Europe by over 50%. Perhaps Deagel is anticipating a serious collapse of complex society because food won’t be grown, processed, and sent to cities. Maybe COVID is seen as just a catalyst. Most people in today’s highly urbanized world, from cubicle dwellers to ghetto rats, are incapable of surviving for more than a week if supply chains break.

International Man: The report also discusses a prediction regarding a potential war that involves Russia and China against the US. What are your thoughts on this? Is it likely that we’ll see a conflict of this kind during the 2020s?

Doug Casey: As I said earlier, a war, at least with China, seems inevitable. It will likely be fomented by the US because, as the economy goes bad, governments always look for somebody else, an outsider, to blame. At this point - and I recognize this will outrage jingoists and nationalists - the US government is actually the most dangerous force on the face of the planet. Much more dangerous than the Chinese, the Russians, or anybody else. Why? The US government is unique in actively and aggressively looking for trouble absolutely everywhere, sticking its nose into everything. Only the US has troops in a hundred other countries and is fighting hot wars in several more.

It’s said, for instance, that the Russians are aggressors because they may retake the Crimea and the Donbas region. Most Americans, who can’t even find these places on the map, are unaware that Crimea had been part of Russia since it was taken from the Ottomans in the 18th century and is mostly populated by ethnic Russians. Nikita Kruschev arbitrarily transferred it from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 for personal political reasons shortly after Stalin’s death. The current problem started only after the US fomented a coup d’etat, a so-called color revolution, in Ukraine in 2014. It then made sense for Putin to retake it, much like the US tried to overthrow Castro after he ousted Batista.

In any event, it’s a problem between Russia and Ukraine and none of our business. The Biden regime butting in is somewhat analogous to Russia threatening war over the US owning Puerto Rico. We don’t need a serious war with Russia over nothing.

Taiwan is similar. Historically, it’s just a secessionist Chinese province - or not. Perhaps it’s a government in exile. But no matter; these are meaningless legalisms. Frankly, I’m on the side of Taiwan, but it’s none of our business whether they go to war with each other. US government intervention could easily start a conflict with China. It might end with the sinking of a couple of US carrier groups, or it might evolve into World War 3.

And, of course, we’re still in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Plus Africa and God knows where else. The US is unnecessarily and stupidly whacking hornet’s nests everywhere in the world, bankrupting itself and making enemies, setting the stage for something really significant."
Related:
"Entirely Possible This Will Be Used
 For Massive-scale Depopulation"
by Mordechai Sones

"America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more. At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population. I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany. I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention. Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive? While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.
Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.

There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

AFLDS: The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”

In a talk you gave four months ago, you said, “The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.”

In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity. The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?

Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.
The study is from one of the best labs in their field. So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.

However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated."

AFLDS: My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus. For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.

Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.

Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19? Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case? And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?

“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick. As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous. No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.

It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”. Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.

The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants. This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.

I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.

The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right). The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”

AFLDS: Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?

Yeadon: “Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA.
 Always good quality interactions.

Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.

So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest. The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine. You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online. So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us. Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.

I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator. I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will be exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.

PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them. As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.

For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it. It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”
Related:
Without comment I present this article for your consideration,
and strongly urge you to view it:

Musical Interlude: Ludovico Einaudi, "The Royal Albert Hall Concert" ( 2010 )

Full screen recommended.
Ludovico Einaudi, "The Royal Albert Hall Concert" ( 2010 )

"A Look to the Heavens"

“How many arches can you count in the below image? If you count both spans of the Double Arch in the Arches National Park in Utah, USA, then two. But since the above image was taken during a clear dark night, it caught a photogenic third arch far in the distance- that of the overreaching Milky Way Galaxy. Because we are situated in the midst of the spiral Milky Way Galaxy, the band of the central disk appears all around us.
Click image for larger size.
The sandstone arches of the Double Arch were formed from the erosion of falling water. The larger arch rises over 30 meters above the surrounding salt bed and spans close to 50 meters across. The dark silhouettes across the image bottom are sandstone monoliths left over from silt-filled crevices in an evaporated 300 million year old salty sea. A dim flow created by light pollution from Moab, Utah can also be seen in the distance.”

"Life Is The Hyphen..."

"Life is the hyphen between matter and spirit."
- A.W. and J.C. Hare, 

"A Single Lesson...

"Your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and worldviews are based on years and years of experience, reading, and rational, objective analysis. Right? Wrong. Your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and worldviews are based on years and years of paying attention to information that confirmed what you already believed while ignoring information that challenged your preconceived notions. If there’s a single lesson that life teaches us, it’s that wishing doesn’t make it so."
– Lev Grossman

"Why Do We Laugh..."

"Why do we laugh at such terrible things? Because comedy
is often the sarcastic realization of inescapable tragedy."
- Bryant H. McGill

The Poet: David Whyte, "One Day"

"One Day"

"One day I will say
the gift I once had has been taken.
The place I have made for myself
belongs to another.
The words I have sung
are being sung by the ones
I would want.
Then I will be ready
for that voice
and the still silence in which it arrives.
And if my faith is good
then we'll meet again
on the road,
and we'll be thirsty,
and stop
and laugh
and drink together again
from the deep well of things as they are."

- David Whyte,
"Where Many Rivers Meet"

"The poem is a little myth of man's capacity of making life meaningful.
And in the end, the poem is not a thing we see -
it is, rather, a light by which we may see - and what we see is life."
- Robert Penn Warren

The Daily "Near You?"

Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Thanks for stopping by!