Communist-style propaganda and virtue signaling were out in full force Tuesday when Spanish Environmental Minister Teresa Ribera allegedly traveled via private jet and then hopped on an electric bicycle while being escorted by gasoline-powered vehicles to a climate summit held by the European Union. 

A video of Ribera, a member of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, went viral and has drawn tremendous backlash on Twitter. For the last mile of the trip, she made the journey on an electric bike to the European Summit of Environment and Energy Ministers. 

The public relations stunt seems purely for show — after all, who cycles in such attire? Furthermore, the lack of a helmet and cycling shoes is noticeable and suggests she was only on the bike for a short distance. 

Spanish Socialist Minister Teresa Ribera travelled to the EU Climate Summit on a private jet, pulled up to the venue in a limo and then got out and rode a bike escorted by cars a few feet.

These people are frauds.

pic.twitter.com/A6r6fjLDLR

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 11, 2023

“Teresa Ribera’s thing about making you arrive by bicycle at a climate summit, traveling barely a hundred meters, escorted by two armored gasoline cars is another of the images that perfectly define this government,” one user tweeted. 

Officials from the conservative Partido Popular (People’s Party) mocked the minster (as well as the rest of the internet):

“To go to the meeting on her bike, she went with an official car in front of her and another behind her, creating double the emissions, so people would take photos of her.

“How ridiculous, minister. Aren’t you embarrassed?” Spanish politician Esteban González Pons tweeted. 

Para llegar en bici a la reunión ha ido con un coche oficial delante y otro detrás, emitiendo el doble de humo, para hacerle fotos.
Buscad el video, es para partirse.
El sanchismo también es postureo.
Qué ridículo, ministra, ¿no te da vergüenza parecer salida de Vota a Juan? https://t.co/yS2PopHLDH

— González Pons (@gonzalezpons) July 10, 2023

These politicians could hold a Zoom meeting rather than traveling in private jets to climate conferences. Ribera’s staged photo op indicates that political elites believe the intelligence of the average voter is lacking. However, people are waking up to this nonsense. 

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

Last week I published my thoughts on what was happening in France from a great power rivalry perspective. The infighting between factions and who represents whom is now just as chaotic and temporary as the situation on the ground in places where there is obvious conflict, like Ukraine.

The protests in France are the culmination of many of these factors coming together, some of which I went into.

I left you hanging with the following thought:

… Nothing less than the fate of a 300 year project for world government hangs in the balance. Everyone of these horrific factions wants to rule the world but none of them have the means by themselves to pull it off. So, watching them maneuver each other into the line of fire would be hilarious if the stakes weren’t so freaking high for the rest of us.

That’s a big statement to make but this has been the overriding theme of this blog and all of my work for nearly ten years. It’s been as much of a journey of discovery for me as any of my readers.

And the questions hanging in the air as the NATO Summit goes on in Vilnius center around just who is pushing who forward into war? Macron in France has assumed near dictatorial powers and yet the potential threat of collapse of his government rises daily.

Since that article we’ve had our second major European government in as many months collapse.

First it was Pedro Sanchez’s cobbled together coalition government in Spain, where he called for snap elections (scheduled for next month) after the center-right swept into power regionally.

Over the weekend it was key World Economic Forum leader Mark Rutte’s government in the Netherlands that fell over a failure to come together on new migrant policy. As the WEF pushed the Dutch farmers into open revolt against Rutte through land seizure and onerous regulations on nitrogen usage, the farmers organized themselves into a political party who gained so much support so quickly that it brought down Rutte.

Rutte announced he will not be standing for re-election in the subsequent elections. The revolt in the Netherlands is nearly complete at the national level. The last poll taken in the Netherlands had BBB, the farmers party, winning. Note, however, this poll is now nearly a month old.

Netherlands, Peil poll:

Seat projection

BBB-*: 28 (-1)
VVD-RE: 20
GL-G/EFA: 14
PVV→ID: 14 (+1)
PvdA-S&D: 11
PvdD-LEFT: 10
D66-RE: 10
SP→LEFT: 8 (+1)
JA21-ECR: 7 (+1)
…

+/- vs. 16-17 June 2023

Fieldwork: 30 June – 1 July 2023
Sample size: N/A
➤ https://t.co/dz1X5eQdmV pic.twitter.com/WiDhYBTINB

— Europe Elects (@EuropeElects) July 2, 2023

But even with this change, there is no consensus in the Netherlands. The electorate is split along more than a dozen parties. A ruling coalition has to come up with 76 seats to form a government. Unless current polling shifts significantly between now and the election, getting a fully Anti-WEF coalition running the country is of low probability.

The most likely outcome will be no government in the Netherlands for months as WEF-aligned parties hold their breath and refuse to ally with anyone they deem ‘unworthy.’ And if a coalition does come together it will be hobbled by traitors and backbiting, cf. Italy for the past decade.

And I haven’t even gone into the opposition that government, if it formed, would run into from the apparatchiks in Brussels, who will come down hard on them enforcing any new EU directives that come out of the pie-hole of the EU Commission.

Just ask Viktor Orban in Hungary, for example.

The Netherlands is part of the story of revolt against the planned putsch towards global government by Davos and those adjacent to them. Look at the polling surge for Alternative for Germany (AfD) in places where the center-right has never dominated. AfD is no longer just a former East Germany phenomenon. It’s now an anti-SPD, anti-Green, pro-humanity movement across Germany.

Ultimately, however, there’s still a lot of inertia at every level of society to overcome before real change can be effected, especially in Europe where there isn’t real Federalism within the EU like there is in the US.

It’s a double pit the people have to crawl out of, unless there is something brewing to destroy the EU at the same time this populist movement is gaining momentum.

Mr. Market Tear Down This Wall

Because that inertia is so strong, it’s why I keep my eye on the shifts occurring in the capital markets and the factionalization happening at the central bank level.

On the eve of the major NATO Summit in Vilnius shifting to see if the capital markets are, as Martin Armstrong would put it, sniffing out the future with subtle capital flows seems prudent.

This is why I broke this up into two parts, because as I was writing part I the price action in the sovereign debt and commodity markets were doing just that.

For two years since I first toyed with the idea that FOMC Chair Jerome Powell began ‘stealth tightening’ of US monetary policy, I’ve watched for signs that capital was preferentially flowing into the US at the expense of Europe.

The main indicator for me has been the US/German 10-year yield spread. These are the two benchmarkt bond markets for the US and Europe. One is the global ‘safe haven’ sovereign bond the other the European ‘safe haven’ bond.

I’ve since added the 2 year spread as well. As I discussed with Danielle Dimartino Booth in our last chat (Ep.#148 of the GGnG Podcast) there have been three big events over the past year that marked significant policy or sentiment shifts.

Event #1 – ECB President Christine Lagarde announces the TPI – Transmission Protection Instrument or Toilet Paper Initiative where she told the world she will manage credit spreads as the ECB is forced to raise rates to 1) combat inflation and 2) follow the Fed because Powell wasn’t pivoting.

It led to the Bank of Japan widening the band on their yield curve control (YCC) policy to 0.50% at the December meeting which sent the spread tumbling into….

Event #2 – February 1st FOMC Meeting — Powell only raises by 25 basis points but finally convinces the markets he was serious about his “Higher for Longer” policy. It’s reflected in the prices of all markets.

It was also the beginning of the end of liquidity of the Eurodollar Futures Contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). By April the Three-Month SOFR Futures contract would replace the Eurodollar contract completely. I wrote about this in my last two-part series “The War for the Dollar is Already Over” (Part I and Part II).

That set in motion a big sell-off in US treasuries which I think Lagarde managed by holding German rates down blowing out the spread. A month later we had a few bank failures in the US. Credit Suisse blew up, etc. This led to …

Event #3 — Japan Doesn’t End YCC Yet — When new Bank of Japan President Kazuo Ueda told markets he wasn’t giving up YCC it helped bail out Lagarde and the ECB one more time as spreads widened again into the Debt Ceiling “Crisis” of June and is still in effect today.

But, that’s not the whole story because the fear of the BoJ giving up YCC and the turmoil in the US banks was so strong we saw massive short covering in the Japanese 10-year bond. So much so Ueda didn’t have to change policy because the yield was so far below the 0.5% limit.

So for a few months the unwinding of short JGB carry trades built up over years of YCC and Zero-bound rates globally helped Lagarde hold the whole range of Eurobond prices below what look to me as trip-wire levels.

But note, the 10-year JGB is rocketing back towards the 0.5% limit where Ueda will have to intervene. In fact, I’d say he’s already doing something because the yen has moved from 145 back to nearly 140 in just a couple of days.

Chart Porn incoming:

Germany’s CPI came in at 6.4% this month. In line with expectations, but meaning Lagarde can no longer hold this line. And the Bundesbank needs a massive bailout according to a recent audit of its finances.

Rutte’s government fell, the risk of a major political upheaval is rising. Who else other than Lagarde would buy Dutch debt at 3%

Spain’s government is about to change. Energy prices are starting to rise as we get into the winter. Who’s buying this debt below 3.75%?

It may be my confirmation bias talking but all I see is someone sitting on certain levels and intervening hard to ensure those levels are not breached for any length of time. The moment these yields get ‘out of the box,’ Lagarde comes in to tamp them back inside.

The Big Dogs Are Howling

The US CPI is forecast to come in at 3.1% and the market is saying Powell will raise in two weeks. I’m not sure he does because that would be interpreted as him hiking too far with recession just over the horizon.

And that would pressure the long-end of the yield curve again. Powell would be better served letting the market do his work in normalizing the yield curve for him by not raising here and waiting until the September meeting.

The market reaction to no rate hike would be immense and blow apart the carefully-constructed yield edifice Lagarde and her partner-in-crime Janet Yellen have erected.

How does Lagarde manage these spreads if Powell lets his foot off the neck of domestic credit for a few more weeks and Japan is staring at ending YCC with current inflation at ~3%?

Look at oil prices folks, they are rising again. Brent’s knocking on $80 per barrel with WTI following right along. US gasoline prices are coiling into this fall, setting up for a rally. Still think inflation is over? Not a chance.

Last week’s bond action put Lagarde in another ugly situation because the US 10 year broke above 4% and closed there, pushing all of these yields up through her redlines and so far there’s been no rally in US bonds to help her stuff them back down.

This week is therefore pivotal because the US 10 year is flirting dangerously close with a major breakout above 4.09%. We’ve already had the violation of the March high this week and there’s no indication that rates have topped here or will back down. The 2/10 spread has also significantly reversed from a low of -110 bps to -86 bps.

The one thing everyone short dollars is afraid of right now is any amount of yield curve normalization in US Treasuries. But that is exactly what is happening.

For the past few months I’ve been tracking the internal spreads within the US yield curve for my Patrons. And since the Debt Ceiling was resolved (not well, I might add) the markets have rightly begun taking on more duration risk.

There’s no argument that there is a lot of work yet to be done, but the trends on a weekly basis are clear. Capital is demanding a higher yield going further out the yield curve than it was in Q2. And eventually this bodes well for domestic banks to begin repairing their balance sheets.

But it won’t be the ones in Europe, who are standing on the verge of a rate shock that’s been just over the horizon for a while now. The current policy path is set. Powell’s not flinching in the face of rapid de-dollarization and domestic fiscal insanity.

It’s his job to fix the parts of the US balance sheet that he controls. He’s doing that. The traitors on Capitol Hill are trying to spend us into debtor’s prison.

Vilnius or Bust

Now think about what’s happening at Vilnius, at the NATO Summit. Biden wants a new commitment to spend even more on weapons for Ukraine but doesn’t want to bring Ukraine into the fold. The UK is screaming for both things.

Macron is now happy to supply missiles to Ukraine because it feeds his military-industrial complex and his longer-term goals of a European security pact without the US.

Turkey stopped blocking Sweden’s entry into the alliance because he got the F-16s he needs to fulfill his ambitions regionally. Someone finally offered Erdogan the right bribe to get him to sign off on this.

What’s happening in the financial markets is a harbinger that the bureaucratic inertia of the West is too powerful to overcome. They are preparing for the worst but still holding onto hope for the best. Once these yield walls fail, however, we’ll know there is no turning back.

Why? Because if the European sovereign bond market goes into rapid meltdown then escalation is the only politically expedient path for these narcissistic assholes to maintain power as their economies collapse.

Macron and France may have successfully beaten down the migrant riots/color revolution but they don’t have control over the situation. If anything the divisions between French nativism and the migrant population are only deeper today than two weeks ago.

The political upheaval on the ground is a few weeks/months ahead of the real turmoil under the surface of the capital markets. Lagarde is rapidly being put in a box by geopolitical imperatives and the opposition in the US to fighting a war with Russia over Ukraine.

The conflicted message coming from the Biden Administration reflects this. “Biden” wants more weapons in Ukraine to keep bleeding Russia out, but his military is clearly trying to restrain him from taking us past the point of no return.

Hence his reasoning to block the UK’s Ben Wallace’s ascension to NATO Gen. Secretary and retaining Jens Stoltenberg for another year. It’s why Stoltenberg continues to hold the line about Ukraine’s entry into NATO being predicated on them “winning the war as a sovereign nation.”

The war-mongers in London, DC and Brussels realize that this half-baked form of war is running out of runway. It’s costing them politically, economically and spiritually. They are losing the momentum and need something to ‘wake the sheeple up!’

What should scare everyone is that their thinking is simple: If “Biden” won’t fully commit to Ukraine then we’ll make that decision for him.

Because, despite everything, it’s finally sinking into their thick skulls that Russia’s economy is not collapsing. And while its industrial production, wage and inflation data all point to real productivity growth neither is it fully committed to full industrial war status yet.

Putin, unlike Biden, isn’t trying to escalate any further than he needs to. By not upgrading the conflict to allow full mobilization Putin keeps the door open for a negotiated settlement. The problem, as the Russians have pointed out time and again, is that they don’t know who to talk to.

No one is in charge of this operation. There are just competing factions without final say as to what the policy should be.

Putin’s approval rating rose in the wake of his handling Prigozhin’s Rebellion. He successfully navigated the domestic division between the realists he represents and the hard-liners who Prigozhin represented.

For the West losing in Ukraine after this much blood and treasure have been spilled, fomenting a full-blown sovereign debt crisis which will consume not only a few more national governments but quite likely the EU itself, will be the end of that 300 year project I talked about at the beginning.

It’s both terribly complicated but incredibly simple.

And it could all coming crashing down in the next few weeks.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you grave walk through empires

The Kremlin is saying consequences are coming against France after President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday announced supplies of SCALP long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine. The AFP then reported that the first delivery of the missiles are already in Kiev’s hands. 

“The first missiles had been delivered when the president announced it,” a source told the publication from the NATO summit in Vilnius. It seems a number of the Western allies are trying to bring something “big” to the table for the Vilnius summit, making their announcements of the various new defense aid packages from Lithuania. 

The UK calls the same weapon the “Storm Shadow” – as SCALP is an air-launched British-French missile, which will reportedly now constitute the longest range weapon in Ukraine’s arsenal of foreign arms.

Some reports have cited a 290 km or more operational range, but this can be modified depending on the recipient. Russia quickly blasted the French decision as “erroneous” and said that “it remains to be clarified and found out exactly what (effective casualty) radius we are talking about,” according to a statement from Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

“This, from our point of view, is an erroneous decision, fraught with consequences for the Ukrainian side. Because, naturally, this will force us to take countermeasures,” he told a press briefing.” He stressed that for Ukraine the missiles only “only aggravates its fate.”

“These decisions (to supply heavier weapons) cannot, are not able to turn the course of the ‘special military operation’. They can only aggravate the fate of the Ukrainian, Kyiv regime,” Peskov asserted. 

He also hinted it could ultimately threaten broader European security: 

Concerning Ukraine’s speedy accession to NATO, Peskov said it could be very dangerous for European security.

“This really conceals great dangers, and those who will make this decision have to realize that,” he stressed.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda then seized on the veiled Kremlin threat to urge NATO members to begin establishing permanent military bases on Russia’s borders, according to a report in Anadolu Agency:

“The Russian military infrastructure has never moved towards Western Europe… however there has always been a movement in the opposite direction. If the Europeans do not understand this mistake, then, of course, it is regrettable,” he noted.

BREAKING:

Reuters reports that France has started delivering a “significant amount” of SCALP long-range missiles to Ukraine.

It’s the same missile as the UK’s Storm Shadow.

Will Germany change its mind and start delivering Taurus?

🇫🇷🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/tsituw9xt5

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 11, 2023

The NATO summit will run through tomorrow, and itself is located in Russia might consider it’s “own backyard” of the Baltics. Likely, the bellicose war rhetoric will only grow, as more and more escalatory measures are unveiled. 

Is Germany next to jump on the “more and bigger weapons” to Ukraine bandwagon? 

Authored by Lily Zhou via The Epoch Times,

Former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg is pushing for a new law that will make it more difficult for banks to shut down people’s accounts.

It comes amid ongoing suspicion that banks have been closing customers’ accounts over their political exposure or views.

Mr. Rees-Mogg, a Conservative MP and GB News presenter, told The Telegraph that while banks have the right to block accounts, “they are doing this in far too many cases.”

With the declining of cash, an individual without a bank account is effectively a “non-citizen” or a “non-person,” he said.

According to the report, Mr. Rees-Mogg will propose an amendment to the Digital Markets Bill, that aims to stop banks from discriminating against clients.

The amendment would also compel banks to inform customers why their accounts would be closed within 30 days of their decision and give customers the right to demand compensation, the report said.

“I would hope the government will take up this amendment. This is where the Government wants to be; it is helping their policy,” Mr. Rees-Mogg said.

Nigel Farage Denied Accounts By 9 Banks

Mr. Rees-Mogg’s proposal comes as his colleague at GB News, former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, said he couldn’t find a bank that’s willing to hold his account in the UK.

In a video published on YouTube on June 29, Mr. Farage said his bank had told him they were going to close his account. He said the bank gave no reason for closing his account, but speculated that rules regarding politically exposed persons (PEPs) may be one of the possible reasons.

Mr. Farage also speculated that Labour MP Sir Chris Bryant’s assertion in Parliament that Mr. Farage had “received £548,573 from Russia Today in 2018” may have contributed to the banks’ unwillingness to give him an account.

In an update published on Monday,  the former businessman and politician said he still hasn’t found a new bank, with nine banks having rejected his business.

British Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage speaks during a visit to Dover harbour, in Dover, Britain, on Aug. 12, 2020. (Matthew Childs/Reuters)

It’s unclear whether banks are denying Mr. Farage access to an account over PEP concerns, politicians with all parties have complained about running into difficulty with banks.

PEPs rules are international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. They were adopted by the European Union in the form of directives, which were then incorporated into British law through secondary legislation.

The anti-money-laundering rules require financial institutions to carry out extra checks on PEPs.

While guidance (pdf) published in 2017 clarified that UK PEPs should be treated as low risk unless they pose a higher risk for other reasons, politicians have said that they still had to go through heightened scrutiny.

City Minister Andrew Griffith wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority, urging the watchdog to prioritise a review on PEP rules so they “do not unduly burden or prevent democratically elected individuals, public officials, or their respective families from access to essential banking services.”

Other De-Banking

There have been others who suspected their accounts may have been closed over their political views, although banks have denied the allegations.

In one of the most recent cases, Metro Bank emailed gender-critical parents group Our Duty, saying the bank couldn’t offer an account because it “doesn’t currently allow organisations to receive donations if not a registered charity, and for community groups to be linked to, or influence political policies or legislations.”

Our Duty founder Keith Jordan claimed that a bank manager had told him in a phone call that the group couldn’t get an account because of what it believes is in conflict with the bank’s culture, but the bank denied making any such decisions based an individual or organisation’s personal or political views.

According to the Times of London, an Anglican church leader lost his building society account after he replied to a monthly email soliciting feedback, telling the building society, which had displayed support for the so-called pride month on its website, that he didn’t agree with pushing transgender ideology on children.

The building society has also denied closing any accounts over opinions, saying they “only ever make the difficult decision to close a savings account if a customer is rude, abusive, violent, or discriminates in any way, based on the specific facts, comments and behaviour in each case.”

Triggernometry, a British YouTube show and podcast featuring interviews and satirical content about current affairs and social issues,  also lost a bank account recently. According to co-host Konstantin Kisin, the bank has also cited their reception of donations as a reason.

Authored by Augusto Zimmermann and John Hartnett via The Epoch Times,

“You will own nothing, and you will be happy.” This confronting statement emanates from the World Economic Forum (WEF), a non-governmental organisation established in 1971 by Klaus Schwab.

By all appearances, the WEF is the most powerful organisation in the world. For decades, it has been at the centre of bringing together the world’s richest and most powerful in business and politics, becoming the driving force in the world, especially after COVID-19.

In July 2020, Mr. Schwab co-authored and published a book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset.” With this publication, he sought to identify the weaknesses of the present economic system, which, according to him, were exposed by the alleged pandemic.

Mr. Schwab’s WEF considers COVID-19 as a “rare but narrow window of opportunity” to reset the global economy. This involves the elimination of national borders and the removal of property rights and, indeed, any other individual right from the rest of us.

In what is perhaps even more remarkable, the Great Reset also involves changing human beings.

According to political economist and financial journalist James Gorrie, one of WEF’s people, professor and author Yuval Noah Harari declared that the era of people’s free will is “over,” with humans being merely “hackable animals.”

Above all, the primary goal of the Great Reset is to restructure the entire world into a top-down dictatorship that is ruled by the global oligarchy.

“COVID-19 restrictions and measures to tackle climate change are pillars of the Great Reset initiative aimed to remake global capitalism, leading ultimately to tyrannical control over societies,” says climate journalist and formal political aide Marc Morano.

An empty and closed Melbourne Cricket Ground is seen in Melbourne, Australia, on Sept. 3, 2021. (Darrian Traynor/Getty Images)

If there is anything COVID-19 has taught us is that many governments are not working for the people.

To the contrary, these governments are following the script of the WEF’s Great Reset, which “is tied to the climate change and the green new deal policies pushed in the United States, Europe and some other countries as well as the United Nations’ climate agenda and net-zero initiative.”

Jeopardizing Food Security to Lower Emissions

These oligarchical plans to compromise food security and destroy property rights are well underway in many countries around the globe.

Take, for instance, the example of the Netherlands. A tiny country in terms of land and population, this country is nevertheless the second largest food exporter in the world.

And yet, this is all coming soon to an end due to governmental policies that effectively blame them for “high greenhouse emissions,” despite the nation contributing only 5.2 percent of all the EU emissions.

It is estimated that up to 3,000 farmers could have to close down their productive farms in that country.

Writing for The Spectator Australia, Xin Du comments:

“The Dutch policies are particularly puzzling, as Dutch farmers are among the most efficient in the world … It is, therefore, mind-boggling that the Dutch government and the EU would want to uproot this industry rather than to promote and emulate it in a world that is running out of food.”

Unfortunately, the Dutch government is not alone in targeting their farmers. Many countries, including Canada, Germany, and Sri Lanka, are following a similar agenda to undermine the agricultural sector by reducing nitrogen in the environment by at least 30 percent.

Farmers arrive for a protest at the government district in Berlin, Germany, on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2019. (Photo: AP /Markus Schreiber)

Joshua Phillip, an investigative reporter and recognized expert on asymmetrical hybrid warfare, says “nitrogen reduction policies and chemical fertilizer trends in the majority of countries around the world will lead to food shortages, like what happened in Sri Lanka recently.”

The global warming alarmists claim nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas, and we must stop meat production to reduce it. This is just another scam.

In the United States, farmers already cannot find enough chemical nitrogen fertilizer to grow their crops. The WEF recommendation to “build back better” has been adopted in the United States as a “climate change policy.”

Under the Biden administration, this, too, has led to the collapse of the current energy system in order to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released a disturbing report that essentially warns the American public about inevitable food shortages.

The threat of food shortage in that country has been further aggravated by governmental policies that result in rising interest rates, price inflation, and excessive environmental regulations that, when combined, create very serious problems for that nation’s agrarian and livestock sectors.

Global Population

It is the WEF’s propaganda of overpopulation and environmental damage that leads governments to implement such rash insane policies.

How is that going to affect global food supplies? Not very well, we suspect. How do we reduce the global demand for resources and limit environmental damage? Depopulate the world of humans.

We are constantly told that there are too many people on this planet and it can’t support everyone.

The WEF has set about implementing an agenda of dramatic depopulation of the world. This has been the program of the Club of Rome, an oligarchical think-tank, as far back as 1972 when its members were concerned with global resources and overpopulation.

Renowned primatologist Jane Goodall said at the WEF in 2020:

“All these [environmental] things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if the world was the size of the population that there was 500 years ago.”

In 1600, the world population is estimated to have been 500 to 580 million. That means 94 percent fewer humans in the world!

We are meant to believe that reducing the world’s population to 500 million will relieve the environment of the stress on both resources and environmental damage.

But the reduction of the human population can be done and has been done through wars.

In World War I, 21.5 million died of which 13 million were civilians. The civilian deaths were largely caused by starvation, exposure, disease, military encounters, and massacres. In World War II, 40-50 million died, the largest of any war.

Then there were the massacres by the communists. For example, Joseph Stalin’s Bolsheviks killed 40-60 million in the former Soviet Union, and Mao Zedong’s communist regime killed 65-78 million in China.

Picture taken on May 1962 showing Chinese refugees queuing for a meal at Hong Kong. – During the famine caused by “The Great Leap Forward” Chinese policy, between 140.000 and 200.000 people were entered illegally at Hong Kong. (AFP via Getty Images)

The war in Ukraine, coupled with the West’s economic sanctions, has put the world’s food security at tremendous risk. These sanctions aim to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. However, they are causing a serious danger to the world’s ability to feed itself.

In the worst-case scenario, says Chris Barrett, an agricultural economist at Cornell University, “we are going to see tens of millions of people suddenly facing famine.”

Control the Money

We are presently experiencing an asymmetric war, some kinetic (NATO/Ukraine vs. Russia) but primarily a silent war where food shortages are engineered. This is achieved through shutting down production by driving farmers from the land, banning live animal exports, and disrupting supply lines, as we saw in the “pandemic” years.

But probably the greatest driver of famine is none of the above. It is the supply of currency and credit.

Control the food supply, and you control the people. But control the money supply, and you control the whole world.

Of course, controlling the money supply also directly affects the food supply.

It goes without saying that since 2008, the world-dominating U.S. Federal Reserve has been “printing money” like never before. Currently, the amount is already 2.3 times larger (in the same dollar terms) than was “printed” during and after World War II. And there is no sign of stopping.

Since the U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency, either hyperinflation will result and/or a total global economic collapse will ensue. Either way, it doesn’t matter; the global famine will accelerate. It is inevitable.

We need to wake up to the tactics of the global oligarchs and resist all efforts to impose their objectives on us.

We must stop also the woke depopulation agenda and put an end to the WEF’s ungodly neofascist agenda before it is too late. Otherwise, paraphrasing WEF’s statement, you will own nothing, and you will be starving!

A pre-print review of autopsy data of more than 300 post-Covid-19 vaccination deaths was removed by the Lancet within 24 hours of its initial submission, according to cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, the paper’s leading author and prominent COVID vaccine skeptic.

“The government narrative is still that people do not die after COVID-19 vaccination. Now we have the largest series of autopsies, and the autopsies really are incontrovertible,” he told the Epoch Times.

The paper was uploaded to the Lancet’s pre-print website on July 6, only to be taken down with a note implying that the study violated the medical journal’s “screening criteria.”

“Pre-print servers go through a check to make sure all the elements of the paper are there, but it is not peer-reviewed by external doctors. And the preprint server simply offers people a chance to look at the data themselves and decide,” McCullough told the Times Jan Jekielek. “I think that’s perfectly fair to look at the tables, look at the figures.”

“Obviously, we struck a very important gap in knowledge and the world needed to know the results.“

The paper was co-authored by Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company, a Florida-based medical group.

The study looked at 678 published papers, 44 of which contained the 325 autopsy cases. They then used a “blind adjudication” process by which three physicians independently review all the deaths and determine whether the Covid-19 vaccine caused, or contributed significantly, to the deaths.

“We use the standard called PRISMA, where we searched for every paper possible. We sorted through hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts because deaths can be reported as different clinical syndromes are coming out after the vaccine,” said McCullough.

“There were deaths where there was an auto accident or a suicide. There were some cases in nursing homes where people are on hospice and it looked like they were in their last days of life. We just couldn’t attribute it to the vaccine,” he added. “But the striking cases were people who were perfectly healthy, who had no other medical problems. The only new thing in their life was a vaccine, and then they died with an obvious syndrome like a blood clot, or heart damage, or myocarditis.”

“This is important because when these papers were originally published, the authors didn’t know the full breadth of safety profiles of the vaccine,” McCullough continued. “Initially there were some autopsies from Germany [where] people died of blood clots shooting to lungs. The authors concluded that it wasn’t vaccine because at that time they didn’t know the vaccine causes blood clots, but we do now.”

To that end, a total of 240 deaths (73.9 percent) were identified as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.

The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53 percent), followed by the hematological system (17 percent), the respiratory system (8 percent), and multiple organ systems (7 percent), according to the paper. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days, with most deaths occurring within a week from the most recent jab.

Without further detail from Lancet, it is hard to tell exactly in which way the study’s methodology might have failed to support its conclusions. On the other hand, Dr. McCullough said they used standard methodology and did reach realistic results. –Epoch Times

“We didn’t come up with an unrealistic number. We didn’t come up with 100 percent or zero percent of deaths were due to vaccines. We came up with a reasonable number that’s defensible,” he said. “In the supplemental tables, people can go through every case and decide if they agree or disagree, and that’s fair. That should be up on the pre-print server so the world can see it.”

“The main thing people want is they want access to the data. They simply don’t want data censored off of the internet,” he added. “We should have grand rounds on this. We should have broad internet discussions on it. People maybe want to discuss specific cases—maybe the authors [of the 44 papers] themselves want to look at it.“

Authored by Lucia Sinatra via The Brownstone Institute,

College COVID vaccine mandates remain some of the most coercive mandates ever declared. While most colleges have now rescinded their mandates, some colleges refuse to let go, and Santa Clara University in California is one of the most oppressive.

In late April 2021, after most incoming freshmen had committed, SCU announced that all students were required to get COVID vaccines for fall enrollment or after full approval, whichever was later. 

Then by mid-summer, SCU announced that students would be required to receive the vaccine even if it remained authorized only for emergency (EUA) and despite the fact that the CA Health and Safety Code codifies the Nuremberg Code. Section 24172 states 

“(t)here is, and will continue to be, a growing need for protection for citizens of the state from unauthorized, needless, hazardous, or negligently performed medical experiments on human beings. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature, in the enacting of this chapter, to provide minimum statutory protection for the citizens of this state with regard to human experimentation and to provide penalties for those who violate such provisions.”

SCU (and many other CA colleges and universities) are in direct violation of this Code for removing informed consent by mandating EUA medical treatments.

Despite lack of efficacy or adequate safety data for this overwhelmingly healthy young adult population, in December 2021, SCU mandated the booster, midway through the academic year when students would have no choice but to comply or leave tens of thousands of dollars behind. SCU’s three-dose requirement remained through the 2022-23 school year.

In complete disregard for the end of the emergency declarations, in early April 2023, when most universities like nearby Stanford were announcing the end of their COVID vaccine mandates, SCU updated its requirement for incoming freshmen. 

On May 8th, one week after the fall 2023 enrollment deadline, SCU quietly updated its COVID vaccine policy to require one bivalent dose for incoming freshmen (but not returning students) regardless of how many COVD vaccines they had previously taken. SCU backdated this announcement to May 1st thinking no one would take notice, but in private emails from incoming students learned that some were furious. We encouraged them to withdraw and accept another offer.

On May 31st, SCU updated its policy again. They now require either three previously taken monovalent doses or one bivalent dose for all community members. As with the University’s previous mandates, SCU offers no religious exemptions and limited medical exemptions for students even in the most extreme of circumstances as explained below. Faculty and staff, however, are permitted to request exemptions. 

SCU’s policy is determined by its opaque “COVID-19 team,” believed to be led by campus physician Dr. Lewis Osofsky, who also holds several positions at Santa Clara County Medical Association (SCCMA). SCCMA partners with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPH) to maximize COVID-19 vaccinations. Santa Clara County is one of the most vaccinated counties in the country, with more than a third having received the bivalent booster, twice the national average, and 88.5 percent having received the primary series.

Osofsky’s positions in the SCCMA include chair of the Professional Standards and Conduct committee, tasked with promoting high ethical standards for physicians and investigating disputes involving unethical conduct.  This is ironic, as Osofsky is believed to be a driving force behind SCU’s ethically-indefensible mandate. Medical ethics would require, at a minimum, both transmission prevention and a proven benefit for students. An antibody increase from vaccines, with no established antibody level correlate of protection, wanes in mere weeks, and cannot support the ethics of a mandate. In fact, a recent study demonstrated that the “greater the number of vaccine doses previously received the higher the risk of COVID-19.”

It is alleged that Osofsky has improperly denied student medical exemptions. In a March 2022 lawsuit filed against SCU, Harlow Glenn, one of the student plaintiffs, claims that she had serious adverse reactions to her primary series COVID vaccines, including an emergency room visit due to leg paralysis and abnormal bleeding. According to the complaint, Osofsky refused to grant her a medical exemption for the required booster and actively interfered with her doctor-patient relationship by contacting her private doctors to persuade them to retract their medical exemption documentation.

Such aggressive tactics are nothing new for Osofsky, as he apparently employs them against patients in his private pediatric practice. Parents have complained in online reviews that Osofsky’s office forced vaccines and didn’t listen to their concerns. As it turns out, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians in private practice a $40,000 bonus for every 100 patients under the age of 2 that they fully vaccinate, if at least 63 percent of the patients are fully vaccinated (including the annual flu vaccine).

Osofsky’s roles with SCCMA, which is in partnership with the SCCPH whose goal is to maximize COVID vaccination, as well as his aggressive private practice approach to vaccination, have likely played a large role in SCU’s continued COVID vaccine mandates. 

On June 14, 2023, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed their opening brief against SCU in the Sixth Appellate District in California. It is expected that SCU will oppose the appeal and insist on its right to demand that students submit to EUA boosters to “protect the campus community.”

Protect the community? That justification went out the window long ago when CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the COVID vaccine did not prevent infection or transmission.

Recently released documents confirmed that Walensky actually knew this information in January of 2021, well before colleges announced COVID vaccination requirements.

Given that the emergency is officially over, and the shots have proven to be both ineffective and in some cases harmful, now more than ever, SCU must defend the science and ethics behind their refusal to drop them. 

In the absence of such transparency, we are left to assume that Osofsky, along with SCCMA and SCCPH, must be using SCU students as mere pawns to achieve their unscientific and authoritarian vaccination goals and quotas.

A new poll from YouGov/The Economist reveals that more black Americans support last month’s Supreme Court decision to strike down race-based admission policies at colleges.

According to the poll, 44% of black respondents said they ‘at least somewhat’ support the recent rulings in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which eliminated race-based admissions practices from college campuses. 36% of blacks polled disapproved of the decision.

Do you approve or disapprove of Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action?

White: 65% approve, 23% disapprove
Hispanics: 45%-30%
Blacks: 43%-36%

Both sexes, all races, every age group, every level of income. All reject race-based governance. https://t.co/a74PiCnGBh pic.twitter.com/VF2qDVBZ0p

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) July 9, 2023

Harvard University hinted that the Ivy League school would be seeking to circumvent the court’s ruling in a press release following the decision. Essays by applicants that discussed how race affected their lives could be taken into consideration during the admissions process, the Supreme Court’s opinion stated. –Daily Caller

Overall, 59% of respondents approved of the Supreme Court ruling vs. 27% who disapproved. 45% of hispanics polled also supported the decision vs. 30% who did not.

The poll was conducted between July 1-5 for The Economist, and included 1,500 adults – 1,350 of whom are registered voters. Of them, 198 were black and 200 were hispanic. The poll had a 2.9% margin of error.

Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,

Stimulus in China is not yet getting through as loan growth declines and money growth stalls, increasing the likelihood policy makers ease further, and driving a re-acceleration in global inflation.

Loan data from China released today superficially showed a “beat” on the month. But month-on-month data is noisy and seasonal, the clearest way to look at it is the percentage change of the 12-month sum. This way we can see the trend, which for total CNY loans is down.

It is loans to non-financial enterprises and government loans that is driving total loans lower. One bright spot is that household-loan growth is rising (but is still negative). China’s pandemic policies, which favored state-owned enterprises at the expense of the household sector, further widened imbalances in the economy.

The low-hanging fruit from export-led growth has been plucked, and mercantile-driven growth has had to be increasingly supplemented by debt to meet targets. Now China is reluctant to stimulate in too carefree a manner as they are increasingly concerned about financial stability. Thus the rise in household-loan growth is a positive sign, but it is not enough to arrest the overall anemic recovery in China.

A principal area of weakness is the property market. It’s a major source of wealth and saving for the household sector in an economy with few alternatives and a closed capital account (at least to most people). It will be difficult to rejuvenate the household sector – and therefore the economy overall – without a rehabilitation of the property market.

Yet despite a series of easing measures, such as aid for developers, with further measures said to be imminent, the property market remains quagmired.

Real-estate transaction growth continues to slide, while floor-space started is contracting at over 6% per year, near series lows.

Furthermore, real-estate debt, after recovering early this year, is falling again, and is on track to make new lows, with USD HY debt having lost almost three-quarters of its value.

China’s binding constraint is unemployment. If growth deteriorates to the point where unemployment begins to rise sharply (youth unemployment is already over 20%, due to the weaker services sector in the pandemic, and a skills mismatch, according to Goldman Sachs), it’s likely China will reach for the hard-liquor, and stimulate – both fiscally and monetarily – much more freely.

This is likely to fuel a re-acceleration in US and global inflation. We’re not there yet, but the more disappointing data we see, the closer we will be.

By Mark Solomon of FreightWaves

UPS Inc. should be prepared to lose as much as 30% of diverted volume should the Teamsters strike the company by the end of the month and a work stoppage last for a decent duration, a leading parcel consultant said Monday.

UPS handled about 18.6 million parcels in the U.S. per day in the first quarter. Under a contingency plan, it expects to handle 4 million parcels on its own. The balance of about 14.6 million parcels, most of which would be ground deliveries, would be subject to diversion.

Satish Jindel, president of consultancy ShipMatrix, said in a communique to FreightWaves that the 30% of volume that could be lost would be equivalent to more than 4 million parcels a day. 

Because there are about 80,000 package car drivers and each driver delivers about 230 parcels per day, the diverted volume, if it never returns to UPS could result in 4,300 lost driver jobs and those of a few thousand package handlers for every 1 million packages diverted, he said.

Unlike the last Teamster strike in 1997, there is plenty of competition for diverted volume. For example, FedEx Corp whose ground unit didn’t exist back then, is delivering on-time performance for air and ground on par with UPS, according to Jindel. This will give shippers more confidence to keep diverted volumes with FedEx, he said.

On Sunday, the U.S. Postal Service launched “Ground Advantage” with two-to-five-day transit times comparable to FedEx and UPS. Jindel envisioned a scenario in which large shippers divert lightweight parcels under 5 pounds that can fit in a mailbox to the Postal Service and the heavier parcels to FedEx.

The potential damage to UPS and its unionized workers behooves both sides to return to the table and resume negotiations, Jindel said. Talks collapsed last week reportedly over an inability to come to terms on part-time wages. No new talks are scheduled. The current contract expires July 31.

“Being very tough in negotiations is analogous to stretching a rubber band,” Jindel wrote. “No one knows the full limit before it snaps and then one has to start all over again with a new set of conditions.”

Separately, for the minority of Teamsters union members at UPS who don’t favor a strike should a contract not be agreed to in three weeks, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on Monday issued some advice.

All UPS employees can resign their membership in the union and continue to do their jobs, according to a legal notice issued by the foundation. “If you don’t support the union you can send the union a letter resigning your membership at any time,” the notice said.

In addition, employees who resign their membership — or who are already nonmembers — have the right to work even if the union orders a strike. “Union officials can — and often do — fine union members thousands of dollars for working during a strike,” the notice said. “So you should seriously consider resigning your union membership before you return to work during a strike, which is the only way to avoid fines and discipline.”

Employees working in a “right-to-work” state, where union membership and financial support are voluntary, can resign their membership and opt out of all union financial support, according to the notice.

Employees not working in a state with those protections have the right to opt out of paying dues for union politics and may be able to avoid other union financial support, according to the notice. In non-right-to-work states, unions can still only mandate that employees pay dues as a condition of employment if the union and management have finalized a union monopoly bargaining contract that contains a valid forced-dues clause, the notice said.

About 97% of UPS’ members have voted to authorize a strike if a contract is not reached by July 31. The Teamsters represent 340,000 UPS employees, many of them part-timers.