Expecting It,
Surplus Energy Economics, Why are we surprised by the inevitable?
A narrative shared by government, business and, for the most part, the general public – is that the economy will carry on growing as we shift from climate-harming fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives such as wind and solar power. This process, boosted by advances in technology, will increase our leisure time, and give us more money to spend on discretionary (non-essential) products and services.
In reality, none of this can happen, yet we keep being “surprised” when it doesn’t...
..Historically, investors’ returns on their capital came in the form of cash dividends and coupons, supplemented by capital appreciation driven by rises in anticipated forward income streams.In reality, none of this can happen, yet we keep being “surprised” when it doesn’t...
Now, though, yield – the rate of cash returns – has been very severely depressed, and investors’ returns come mainly in the paper form of capital gains, and these, in aggregate, can never be monetised. Once the “everything bubble” in asset prices bursts, returns on invested capital will fall back to the (very low) levels provided by yield alone.
This trend needs to be seen in the context of rising financial stress and worsening exposure. Stress can be measured by comparing movements over time in the material and monetary economies, remembering that a tendency towards equilibrium is inherent in the claims relationship between the two economies...
..In essence, a radical correction in the relationship between financial stock and material economic prosperity has been hard-wired into the system.
Knowing this, however, makes it no less important that we understand that discretionary sectors are going to be the main victims of a process of leveraged compression, as the costs of essentials rise at the same time as the material economy itself is contracting.
With gold still holding near its historic all-time highs, central banks led by China are bucking the classic adage and smash-buying more, buying the top to fortify themselves against a global monetary and financial blow-up...
..Last month marked the 17th in a row that the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) continued stacking gold. Notably, the bank typically reports lower numbers than its actual buying volume and is now also introducing a digital yuan to facilitate cross-border gold settlements.Russia is also doubling its reserves of gold and foreign currencies on its de-dollarization path, further detaching Russia from the petrodollar empire as it reacts to wartime sanctions from the US and EU...
..Peter Schiff said:
“We have a much bigger problem than they acknowledge — that’s why the price of gold is at a record high, that’s why it’s going to keep going up.”
With the overstretched and over-indebted American empire increasingly in a state of potentially terminal decline, BRICS countries are stacking hard assets with the hopes of overtaking the West as the next economic superpowers in the coming decades. While they have fiat currencies of their own, none have anything resembling the world reserve currency status enjoyed by the USD. Buying the top even as gold continues upward tells a story of their future visions of US dollar chaos.
“We have a much bigger problem than they acknowledge — that’s why the price of gold is at a record high, that’s why it’s going to keep going up.”
With the overstretched and over-indebted American empire increasingly in a state of potentially terminal decline, BRICS countries are stacking hard assets with the hopes of overtaking the West as the next economic superpowers in the coming decades. While they have fiat currencies of their own, none have anything resembling the world reserve currency status enjoyed by the USD. Buying the top even as gold continues upward tells a story of their future visions of US dollar chaos.
Gold hit an all-time high of $US 2430/Troy oz. today and has dropped $78 since then. Wild gyrations. https://www.kitco.
Charles Hugh Smith, Sound Money Vs. Fiat Currency: Trade and Credit Are the Wild Cards , We need to start thinking outside the current system, which has no solutions.
In traditional economies in which gold and silver are money, credit was generally limited to commerce, as credit based on loaning surpluses of gold and silver was limited by the scarcity of those metals. But the demand for credit did not diminish; rather, it increased, which is why small banks (that often went bust) emerged in the 1820s in America to meet the demand from small enterprises for credit to expand.
In an economy in which gold is the only money, credit is limited to a percentage of gold held in reserves, as much of the reserves must be held to fund customer redemptions / withdrawals. This limits the availability of credit...
..Borrowing money into existence by selling Treasury bonds serves to limit the collapse of currencies, but it imposes interest payments (mostly paid to the wealthy who own 90% of the nation's financial wealth) which drain the economy of vitality, leading to stagflation / decline.
We need to start thinking outside the current system, which has no solutions: debt-free money leads to billion-dollar bills, "sound money" (gold or bitcoin, it doesn't matter) ends up in the hands of the wealthy and borrowing money into existence leads to stagnation as soaring interest sucks the economy dry.
I have explored money in two books:
Money and Work Unchained and
A Radically Beneficial World, which proposes a system that creates new money at the bottom of the wealth-power pyramid rather than at the top. Yes, I understand this is wildly impractical in the current zeitgeist, but all conventional monetary systems run aground on their intrinsic limits / flaws, we'll have to start somewhere other than the status quo. https://
We need to start thinking outside the current system, which has no solutions: debt-free money leads to billion-dollar bills, "sound money" (gold or bitcoin, it doesn't matter) ends up in the hands of the wealthy and borrowing money into existence leads to stagnation as soaring interest sucks the economy dry.
I have explored money in two books:
Money and Work Unchained and
A Radically Beneficial World, which proposes a system that creates new money at the bottom of the wealth-power pyramid rather than at the top. Yes, I understand this is wildly impractical in the current zeitgeist, but all conventional monetary systems run aground on their intrinsic limits / flaws, we'll have to start somewhere other than the status quo. https://
The interests and capabilities of European and US central banks diverge. The European economy has badly contracted already, especially the "real economy", and it becomes terribly hard to maintain the pretense that high levels of debt at high interest can even be serviced. The ECB has to reduce interest rates due to immediate stress.
The Federal Reserve Bank puts that date off again, because "inflation", making the $US, invested in the US, "the cleanest dirty shirt" amongst fiat currencies. (Tom Luongo has long argued that the Fed intends to force the ECB to crash first, supporting the $US in US investments, not the "Eurodollars" in European investments, supporting the imperial currency, though weakening the "new periphery" of the empire, Europe.) The Final Nail In The Coffin Of Synchronized Central Bank Actions
Not so long ago ‘June’ appeared to be the month for the two major global central banks. But in the last few weeks the Fed got its ‘itchy fingers’ slapped by stronger-than-expected labor market and sticky (services) CPI data. It is now fairly clear that ‘June’ is no longer the month of truth for the Fed, as our own Philip Marey explained earlier this week in his post Fed-minutes comment – we have moved the goalpost for the Fed to September...
A Midwestern Doctor, Natural and Unnatural Political Systems, What medicine can teach us about having a healthy government
Because of the perilous times we live in, I believe it is critical for us to understand this concept so we can understand how to effectively address it...
..In recent years, the Western World has been fortunate to have a moderately functional (and prosperous) government, so many of the challenges most of humanity has had to struggle with throughout history have been very minimal in our society. In turn, those struggles are often simply an abstract idea for those who did not have to experience them and many have hence stopped participating and the civil process because they’ve come to take the current status quo for granted.
However, a variety of recent events have begun to change that (e.g., COVID-19), and we are now moving towards an era of extreme volatility and change which is bringing many of these issues to the forefront—especially since our society is currently in a period of institutional decline where many of the institutions we’ve long trusted to look out for our interests are being overtaken by corruption and incompetence...
However, a variety of recent events have begun to change that (e.g., COVID-19), and we are now moving towards an era of extreme volatility and change which is bringing many of these issues to the forefront—especially since our society is currently in a period of institutional decline where many of the institutions we’ve long trusted to look out for our interests are being overtaken by corruption and incompetence...
..The essential challenge is that many issues we face simply cannot be broken down into simplistic truths, but at the same time, a lot of people are surprisingly hostile towards nuanced ideas due to the mental capacity which needs to be expended to understand them...
..Throughout my life, I’ve watched more hot button issues than I can count come along where each side is absolutely convinced the other side is wrong (with individuals on each side often become quite upset at the notion anyone disagrees with their viewpoint) to the point a permanent impasse is created, which in turn leads to me often seeing almost identical debates on the issues play out years or decades later.
From studying each of these, I’ve found in most cases both sides are to a degree “correct,” but people on each side subconsciously make the choice to selectively filter their perception of reality so that they only see the arguments which support their narrative. Thus, I find that to actually move the debate forward in a productive fashion, you must focus on the key points both sides agree upon (which in most cases do exist), acknowledge the inherent ambiguity in the subject, and then focus on providing a solution that moves both sides closer to what they want and allows them to see the other side as well-meaning humans as well...
From studying each of these, I’ve found in most cases both sides are to a degree “correct,” but people on each side subconsciously make the choice to selectively filter their perception of reality so that they only see the arguments which support their narrative. Thus, I find that to actually move the debate forward in a productive fashion, you must focus on the key points both sides agree upon (which in most cases do exist), acknowledge the inherent ambiguity in the subject, and then focus on providing a solution that moves both sides closer to what they want and allows them to see the other side as well-meaning humans as well...
..Many of the people in the tech field have come to the conclusion that for our society to function and stay healthy, it must be opitmally micromanaged by their algorithms (which amongst other things is how they rationalize censoring “dangerous” viewpoints). This in my eyes is an exercise in futility (as information will always find a way to leak through the internet) and a mistake no different from what many over-controlling leaders of the past have done. In turn, we see harsher and harsher censorship methods need to be utilized, each of which further breaks the public’s trust in these conglomerates, especially because they can see them repeatedly make catastrophic mistakes which could have been prevented had a vigorous debate from both sides been permitted to occur (e.g., consider many of the COVID-19 policies).
In contrast to their belief that the evolution of our species will arise from a lot of energy being expended to ensure the careful curation of algorithms, I believe Musk has concluded the correct solution is to allow a naturally emergent process occur that cannot be controlled where the best ideas are rapidly selected for and then adopted by humanity, while the accompanying chaos this brings is accepted as a price that has to be paid for that to happen...
In contrast to their belief that the evolution of our species will arise from a lot of energy being expended to ensure the careful curation of algorithms, I believe Musk has concluded the correct solution is to allow a naturally emergent process occur that cannot be controlled where the best ideas are rapidly selected for and then adopted by humanity, while the accompanying chaos this brings is accepted as a price that has to be paid for that to happen...
..One of the biggest things which characterizes the modern era is that things are happening at a rapidly accelerated pace, and by any lens you look at (e.g., months, years, decades or centuries), the change that has happened in the most recent periods is dramatically faster than any which preceded it...
..One of the primary things which has been facilitating this rapid pace of change has been the incredible disruptions being created by the internet allowing the rapid diffusion of information.
As people never like to let go of power and this rapid rate of change is incredibly threatening to the existing power structure, governments around the world have become willing to violate their own laws to secretly pressure the tech companies to censor anything which threatens their power.
While many of us suspected this was happening, Musk made it clear to the world after he leaked the Twitter files, where it was revealed that prior to his ownership, Twitter had regular correspondences with the federal government (e.g., the FBI) where they were given dictates over what content to censor (likewise they received requests from Democrats to censor their political opponents). This resulted in a series of court cases (as its illegal for the government to censor speech) which ultimately prohibited this practice that the Biden Administration is presently hoping the Supreme Court will appeal.
As people never like to let go of power and this rapid rate of change is incredibly threatening to the existing power structure, governments around the world have become willing to violate their own laws to secretly pressure the tech companies to censor anything which threatens their power.
While many of us suspected this was happening, Musk made it clear to the world after he leaked the Twitter files, where it was revealed that prior to his ownership, Twitter had regular correspondences with the federal government (e.g., the FBI) where they were given dictates over what content to censor (likewise they received requests from Democrats to censor their political opponents). This resulted in a series of court cases (as its illegal for the government to censor speech) which ultimately prohibited this practice that the Biden Administration is presently hoping the Supreme Court will appeal.
Recent events in Brazil have put a lot of this into context. In 2022, the right-wing incumbent Jair Bolsonaro (who had advanced a variety of “controversial” positions such as questioning the vaccines, masking social distancing and the danger of COVID-19 while simultaneously promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) ran against a left-wing socialist (Lula) who amongst other things, vehemently endorsed vaccination...
..Lula’s government has understandably not been popular, and it has attempted to “remediate” its image by paying off the corporate media (e.g., the current government is spending 30 times as much as the previous one on media advertising), which has resulted in its narrative dominating the airwaves. In turn, they’ve also pressured each internet company to only show their side of the story, and except for Twitter (𝕏), every single one has...
..Lula’s government has understandably not been popular, and it has attempted to “remediate” its image by paying off the corporate media (e.g., the current government is spending 30 times as much as the previous one on media advertising), which has resulted in its narrative dominating the airwaves. In turn, they’ve also pressured each internet company to only show their side of the story, and except for Twitter (𝕏), every single one has...
..Lula’s government in turn has gotten into an escalating battle with Twitter, which included them demanding Twitter release the identities of users who shared hashtags which criticized the government, give them access to the direct messages and login data of dissidents and to censor opposition journalists and elected officials (including extremely popular ones). Since Musk refused to do this (as it was illegal under Brazilian law) and was public about it, Lula’s government in turn has initiated an escalating series of retaliations against Musk and his employees in Brazil...
..To quote Shellenberger:
In recent days, I have spoken to dozens of Brazilians, including professors, journalists and respected lawyers. Everyone tells me they are shocked by what is happening. They told me that they are afraid to speak their mind and that the Lula government is complicit in creating this climate of fear.
Likewise, many have noticed that the events in Brazil are not isolated, and instead, that globally, we are facing a coordinated campaign of censorship aimed at suppressing the independent voice the internet provides.
From an institutional standpoint, this panic is understandable, as the internet is taking away the power the ruling class has always depended upon. In turn, I would argue that we are at a pivotal point in human history where two radically divergent paths are possible. On one path, the “epidemic of misinformation” will be used to justify some of the harshest censorship regimes in history (alongside artificial intelligence making policies that tyrants of the past always yearned for become possible), while on the other path, a truly free exchange of information will be created which will at last make it possible for the culture’s ideas to be selected on merit rather than corruption and corporate interests...
In recent days, I have spoken to dozens of Brazilians, including professors, journalists and respected lawyers. Everyone tells me they are shocked by what is happening. They told me that they are afraid to speak their mind and that the Lula government is complicit in creating this climate of fear.
Likewise, many have noticed that the events in Brazil are not isolated, and instead, that globally, we are facing a coordinated campaign of censorship aimed at suppressing the independent voice the internet provides.
From an institutional standpoint, this panic is understandable, as the internet is taking away the power the ruling class has always depended upon. In turn, I would argue that we are at a pivotal point in human history where two radically divergent paths are possible. On one path, the “epidemic of misinformation” will be used to justify some of the harshest censorship regimes in history (alongside artificial intelligence making policies that tyrants of the past always yearned for become possible), while on the other path, a truly free exchange of information will be created which will at last make it possible for the culture’s ideas to be selected on merit rather than corruption and corporate interests...
..Modern medicine is somewhat unique in that it is the only system of medicine which does not believe in an innate “health” of the body, and instead seeks to treat people purely through harsh external interventions which force the body to enter the state a treating physician believes it should be in. Many in the natural medicine field (myself included) believe this approach simply cannot treat many of the chronic issues people suffer from, and instead, that we must focus on cultivating the health of the body so that a desired cure can naturally emerge on its own..
Within government, I believe the best form of government is what America is trying to be (a Democracy existing in parallel to a constitution that safeguards the liberties of its people). Unfortunately, for this system to work, it has to be supported by a culture which promotes those ideals (e.g., by having a free press, by having people in the judiciary who prioritize their responsibility to the legal system over their own personal politics, by having a relatively unified population, and by having a shared moral code which inspires everyday citizens to want to do the right thing). In turn, I would argue we are seeing firsthand the consequences of these democratic anchors being lost.
Because Democracy is beginning to fail, many are either losing hope in the system or wanting to attack those who are weakening it. In writing this article, my hope was to show another more effective approach exists—for each of us to do what we can to cultivate the roots of the health of our democracy.
For instance, the main place where most of us can actually influence the political process is locally at a grass roots level, and beyond this directly benefiting our community, national politics are often shaped by the changes which happen at a grass roots level. https://www.
Because Democracy is beginning to fail, many are either losing hope in the system or wanting to attack those who are weakening it. In writing this article, my hope was to show another more effective approach exists—for each of us to do what we can to cultivate the roots of the health of our democracy.
For instance, the main place where most of us can actually influence the political process is locally at a grass roots level, and beyond this directly benefiting our community, national politics are often shaped by the changes which happen at a grass roots level. https://www.
Israeli hospitals have been put on a high state of alert by the home command, awaiting an 'imminent' Iranian retaliation attack. Iran has also reportedly put the United States on notice...
Three U.S. Officials told Axios : Iran has sent a message to the U.S. through several Arab countries, that if they interfere in Iran's response against Israel, U.S. bases in the region will be struck.
Meanwhile, Russia just chose quite the wrong moment to conduct a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from its Kapustin Yar airbase in southern Russia. The rocket was reportedly seen soaring high in the atmosphere from parts of northern Iraq and Iran, triggering concerns it was Iran beginning its attack.
Three U.S. Officials told Axios : Iran has sent a message to the U.S. through several Arab countries, that if they interfere in Iran's response against Israel, U.S. bases in the region will be struck.
Meanwhile, Russia just chose quite the wrong moment to conduct a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from its Kapustin Yar airbase in southern Russia. The rocket was reportedly seen soaring high in the atmosphere from parts of northern Iraq and Iran, triggering concerns it was Iran beginning its attack.
The whole planet awaits with bated breath the avowedly inevitable Iranian response to the attack against its consulate/ambassador residence in Damascus by the biblical psychopaths responsible for the Gaza genocide.
Enveloped in an aura of secrecy, each passing day betrays the immensity of the challenge: the possibly asymmetrical response must be, simultaneously, symbolic, substantive, cogent, convincing, reasonable and rational. That is driving Tel Aviv totally hysterical and the deciding instances of the Hegemon extremely itchy.
Everyone with a functioning brain knows this wet dream of a stunt from the point of view of hardcore Zionists and US Christian zio-cons was a serious provocation, designed to draw the US to the long-cherished Israeli plan of striking a decisive blow against both Hezbollah and Tehran...
..Russian FM Sergei Lavrov and Chinese FM Wang Yi discussing literally every incandescent dossier together earlier this week in Beijing.
Lavrov and Wang could not be clearer on what’s ahead for the Russia-China strategic partnership.
They will engage together on all matters regarding Eurasian security.
They will go, in Lavrov’s words, for "dual opposition" to counterpunch the West’s "dual deterrence”.
They will be countering every attempt by the usual suspects to "slow down the natural course of history”.
Add to it the confirmation that President Putin and President Xi will hold at least two bilaterals in 2024: at the SCO summit in June and at the BRICS summit in October...
..Both Tehran and Moscow face a serious challenge when it comes to the Hegemon’s intentions. It’s impossible to definitely conclude that Washington was not in the loop on Tel Aviv’s attack on Iran in Damascus – even though it’s counter-intuitive to believe that the Democrats in an election year would willingly fuel a nasty hot war in West Asia provoked by Israel.
Yet there’s always the possibility that the White House-endorsed genocide in Gaza is about to extrapolate the framework of a confrontation between Israel and Iran/Axis of Resistance – as the Hegemon is de facto implicated in myriad levels...
..No one knows how the deadlock may be broken. What is clear is that the Russia-China leadership, as well as Iran’s, know full well the dangers roaming the chessboard when the usual suspects seem to go all out gambling everything, even knowing that they are outgunned; outproduced; outnumbered; and outwitted. https://
Enveloped in an aura of secrecy, each passing day betrays the immensity of the challenge: the possibly asymmetrical response must be, simultaneously, symbolic, substantive, cogent, convincing, reasonable and rational. That is driving Tel Aviv totally hysterical and the deciding instances of the Hegemon extremely itchy.
Everyone with a functioning brain knows this wet dream of a stunt from the point of view of hardcore Zionists and US Christian zio-cons was a serious provocation, designed to draw the US to the long-cherished Israeli plan of striking a decisive blow against both Hezbollah and Tehran...
..Russian FM Sergei Lavrov and Chinese FM Wang Yi discussing literally every incandescent dossier together earlier this week in Beijing.
Lavrov and Wang could not be clearer on what’s ahead for the Russia-China strategic partnership.
They will engage together on all matters regarding Eurasian security.
They will go, in Lavrov’s words, for "dual opposition" to counterpunch the West’s "dual deterrence”.
They will be countering every attempt by the usual suspects to "slow down the natural course of history”.
Add to it the confirmation that President Putin and President Xi will hold at least two bilaterals in 2024: at the SCO summit in June and at the BRICS summit in October...
..Both Tehran and Moscow face a serious challenge when it comes to the Hegemon’s intentions. It’s impossible to definitely conclude that Washington was not in the loop on Tel Aviv’s attack on Iran in Damascus – even though it’s counter-intuitive to believe that the Democrats in an election year would willingly fuel a nasty hot war in West Asia provoked by Israel.
Yet there’s always the possibility that the White House-endorsed genocide in Gaza is about to extrapolate the framework of a confrontation between Israel and Iran/Axis of Resistance – as the Hegemon is de facto implicated in myriad levels...
..No one knows how the deadlock may be broken. What is clear is that the Russia-China leadership, as well as Iran’s, know full well the dangers roaming the chessboard when the usual suspects seem to go all out gambling everything, even knowing that they are outgunned; outproduced; outnumbered; and outwitted. https://
Simplicius, Kiev's Largest Power Plant Wrecked in Massive Strikes
And by the way, for those wondering why Russia didn’t begin such a devastating campaign in winter, here’s what Putin is alleged to have told Lukashenko at their soiree today:
Russia did not strike Ukrainian energy sector in winter for humanitarian reasons - Vladimir Putin ...
..What began as mere improbable rumor weeks ago is slowly starting to spin into a common thread of something going on in the Kharkov direction...
..While describing the huge uptick in strikes on Ukraine’s “second city”, they [The Economist] make the first notable admission—that Russia may be looking to effectively force the city’s evacuation, as reportedly opined by ‘military sources’ in Kiev:The escalation had military sources in Kyiv suggesting that Russia has resolved to make the city a “grey zone”, uninhabitable for civilians.
This is important because all the lead-ups I had mentioned earlier certainly appear to paint the picture of an increasing campaign to shut the city’s power down and purge it of civilians in the run-up to a potential large-scale ground assault of some kind...
..So: according to them [The Economist's source] Russia is preparing for a ‘major summer offensive’ and is training a massive two-corps field army of six divisions in ‘eastern Siberia’, according to a high-ranking Ukrainian official... The 120k number matches almost precisely with the number of troops Russia has been designating for each given sector or front...
..So if we are to assume, hypothetically, that this potential new 120k man structure is being trained as one cohesive grouping—an assumption based on the fact that they’re reportedly training together in the same region—under one command, ergo we can make the logical extension that this grouping is intended for a new theater. And what possible new front or theater could be opened up with such a large grouping? There is no room anywhere else to inject such a group other than into the north...Russia appears to know something—here’s UN rep Nebenzya’s latest statement to the committee:"Very soon, the only topic for any international meetings on Ukraine will be the unconditional surrender of the Kiev regime, I advise all of you to prepare for this" ... ..A big uproar ensued in the Ukrainian commentariat after it was finally revealed definitively by Biden’s administration that they apparently do not support Ukraine hitting Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure due to the fear of affecting “global energy markets”...
..I already explained how hitting Russian refineries doesn’t really affect global oil as refineries are working to refine gasoline for Russia’s domestic use. The real reason Biden’s admin is worried about “global” markets is because of the implicit threat of Russia’s retaliation. There are obviously backdoor deals wherein Russia has made clear its escalatory regime should Ukraine be abetted by NATO in striking certain critical ‘red line’ facilities...
..And no single object has generated greater chatter amplitude than Russia’s glide-bombs, which are becoming an utterly insurmountable problem for the AFU: Just as the Lancet was the star of last year’s show, it seems now the glide-bomb has moved into the spotlight. The reason is simple: Ukraine hardly uses armor or vehicles anymore, given that they’ve bunkered up and gone fully on the defensive. Thus there’s not much for Lancets to do at the moment. But glide-bombs are precisely the remedy for Ukraine’s defensive, trench-heavy posture, as they shred trenches and cave them in even from non-direct impacts. And given Ukraine’s frontline air defense depletion, Russian fighter-bombers are able to operate with full impunity, launching the glide-bombs at any and all times and directions... Only in places like Avdeevka, with massive fortified underground structures, were they able to withstand the onslaught. But nearly everywhere else that’s left, such as Chasov-Yar now, glide-bombs will wreck top-ground fortifications and trenches, crumpling them even from some distance away. Ukrainians have reported that the Fab-500 rips doors off hinges from 1km away. https://simplicius76.
Developments on the Ukrainian front show an imminent prospect of a collapse of the Ukrainian defensive line and a decisive offensive by the Russian army. One of Russia's strategic targets is the port of Odessa. And in the event of a successful operation, the Russians officially declare that their next target is the separatist region in eastern Moldova bordering Odessa, Transnistria...
..NATO has its own strategy for such a scenario. To push the Republic of Moldova and Romania into war against Russia as a NATO state neighbouring my country, with which we share the same history, culture and language. Poland is also prepared to enter Ukraine with its troops as part of the same plan to counter the Russian offensive. We note at the outset that both the Republic of Moldova is a neutral country by its constitutional rule, and the stationing of foreign military troops on its national territory is prohibited. However, the force of the law has been countered with the law of force.....It is known that the Republic of Moldova is run by a network of what we call NGO-crats, George Soros' children and US mercenaries. These individuals have been forced by their patrons in the West to violate Moldova's status as a neutral country and to develop aggressive rhetoric against Moscow, and even to provide political and logistical support to the criminal regime in Kiev. And during the two years of proxy war in Ukraine, Moldovan patriots have demanded that the authorities stop engaging in the conflict and respect the neutral status of our country, which requires fairness and impartiality in such armed conflicts. We were not heard. Moreover, we were told, and not without reason, that it is Russia which is the first to violate the neutrality of my country by its illegal military presence on our national territory. Of course, NATO and the Americans are in Romania, and the Russians have no reason to withdraw from Transnistria. Strategic reasons prevail over constitutional norms of a small and vulnerable state like the Republic of Moldova.
At present, citizens of military age in the Republic of Moldova are receiving summonses to report to military commissariats to participate in some cantonments, and military exercises are taking place on our territory this month with the participation of Americans, Romanians and Moldovans. https://telegra.
At present, citizens of military age in the Republic of Moldova are receiving summonses to report to military commissariats to participate in some cantonments, and military exercises are taking place on our territory this month with the participation of Americans, Romanians and Moldovans. https://telegra.
Steve Kirsch, UK ONS denies request from 7 MPs by claiming that the vaccines are safe so there is no need to do any analysis that might show otherwise
The head of the UK ONS says that the data is available for qualified researchers but qualified researchers who have challenged the narrative have been denied access. So the data shall remain hidden! Americans have every reason to believe our sovereignty is in peril with the implementation of this accord. Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel, answers 3 "lies" commonly told about the prospective accord.
Number One is the issue of retaining national sovereignty. He believes the draft treaty and its proposed amendments, which will soon be voted on, indicate a nation's sovereignty will be affected. While it is true, explains Staver, that "individual nations can make more rules or laws that are more restrictive," nations that have fewer or weaker restrictions than those imposed by WHO will be "forced to abide by WHO's restrictions."
Number Two refers to whether the treaty is legally binding. Staver asserts that the draft treaty and proposed amendments indicate that the WHO's documents "will be legally binding," giving the organization "enormous power that will be enforced as legally binding under international law." Staver states that "globalists until now have tried to hide behind the word 'agreement' to avoid the word treaty." He cites Obama's signing of the Paris Agreement or Accord as his example—it is "actually a treaty and is listed as such on the U.N. website, with the U.S. as a signatory even though the Senate did not vote on it." Durbin admits in his letter the WHO Accord is a "draft treaty." Treaties are, in fact, legally binding written contracts in international law.
Finally, Number Three, for those who assert the WHO documents do not mention "lockdowns, closures, or specific surveillance systems," nothing could be further from the truth. The documents contain language related to the imposition of travel restrictions, enforcement of travel through digital passports, the ability to mandate vaccines and medical treatments, and "when drugs will be released to the public, and how vaccines and drugs will be approved."
David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh, authors of a Dec. 2023 Brownstone Institute article, conclude "a rational examination of the texts" shows the proposed treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will impact the sovereignty of nations who participate and "contradict multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)" They write:
"Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce "new normal" health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty.
The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18)."
The Brownstone authors also argue the treaty will "dismantle UDHR." They explain the proposed amendments will "change the recommendations of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms. The term non-binding (in Article 1 of UDHR) will be removed, and the inserted will be the phrase stating Member States will follow WHO's recommendations and "recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the 'coordinating authority, (New Article 13A)."
The WHO Accord will rely on funding from member countries to implement its strategies and "to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies." Resources will be shared among the member countries: manufacturing facilities, medical and pandemic-related products, distribution of medical treatments, etc. Therefore, American taxpayers will kick in to fund the operation, and the WHO will decide where the products and funds go with an eye on "equity," of course. According to WHO's One Health initiative, almost anything can be declared an emergency, including climate change. Regardless of location or origin, those health threats will be ours to fund and respond to, should the U.S. agree to participate.
"Claims of reduced sovereignty," according to the Brownstone Institute, "as misinformation or disinformation" should not be ignored. Remarkably, should the U.S. join the WHO Accord, it would also agree to limit any effort to vocalize opposition to WHO's measures or "claims regarding an emergency." On paper, Article 18 of the IHR guarantees the right to beliefs and religion. However, in the real world, the WHO can define and decide what is or is not misinformation or disinformation.
Number Two refers to whether the treaty is legally binding. Staver asserts that the draft treaty and proposed amendments indicate that the WHO's documents "will be legally binding," giving the organization "enormous power that will be enforced as legally binding under international law." Staver states that "globalists until now have tried to hide behind the word 'agreement' to avoid the word treaty." He cites Obama's signing of the Paris Agreement or Accord as his example—it is "actually a treaty and is listed as such on the U.N. website, with the U.S. as a signatory even though the Senate did not vote on it." Durbin admits in his letter the WHO Accord is a "draft treaty." Treaties are, in fact, legally binding written contracts in international law.
Finally, Number Three, for those who assert the WHO documents do not mention "lockdowns, closures, or specific surveillance systems," nothing could be further from the truth. The documents contain language related to the imposition of travel restrictions, enforcement of travel through digital passports, the ability to mandate vaccines and medical treatments, and "when drugs will be released to the public, and how vaccines and drugs will be approved."
David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh, authors of a Dec. 2023 Brownstone Institute article, conclude "a rational examination of the texts" shows the proposed treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will impact the sovereignty of nations who participate and "contradict multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)" They write:
"Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce "new normal" health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty.
The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18)."
The Brownstone authors also argue the treaty will "dismantle UDHR." They explain the proposed amendments will "change the recommendations of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms. The term non-binding (in Article 1 of UDHR) will be removed, and the inserted will be the phrase stating Member States will follow WHO's recommendations and "recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the 'coordinating authority, (New Article 13A)."
The WHO Accord will rely on funding from member countries to implement its strategies and "to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies." Resources will be shared among the member countries: manufacturing facilities, medical and pandemic-related products, distribution of medical treatments, etc. Therefore, American taxpayers will kick in to fund the operation, and the WHO will decide where the products and funds go with an eye on "equity," of course. According to WHO's One Health initiative, almost anything can be declared an emergency, including climate change. Regardless of location or origin, those health threats will be ours to fund and respond to, should the U.S. agree to participate.
"Claims of reduced sovereignty," according to the Brownstone Institute, "as misinformation or disinformation" should not be ignored. Remarkably, should the U.S. join the WHO Accord, it would also agree to limit any effort to vocalize opposition to WHO's measures or "claims regarding an emergency." On paper, Article 18 of the IHR guarantees the right to beliefs and religion. However, in the real world, the WHO can define and decide what is or is not misinformation or disinformation.
Meryl Nass MD in a Kafkaesque world... I received two official communications from the State of Maine yesterday
First the good news from the Maine Legislature that honored me...
..Second, although the Maine Board of Medicine and the assistant attorneys general who prosecuted the case against me asked to rescind their Final Order, apparently until that issue is litigated, I learned today, the order is considered final. So I had not complied, thinking we were still arguing about it, and I am duly threatened by some Board underling for not meeting their deadline. It looks like the Maine Medical Board has been counting the days. https://merylnass.
..Second, although the Maine Board of Medicine and the assistant attorneys general who prosecuted the case against me asked to rescind their Final Order, apparently until that issue is litigated, I learned today, the order is considered final. So I had not complied, thinking we were still arguing about it, and I am duly threatened by some Board underling for not meeting their deadline. It looks like the Maine Medical Board has been counting the days. https://merylnass.
Professor Anthony Hall, Freedom Convoy Beacon versus Law School Huckster
Olympic Gold Medalist Jamie Salé Comes Out Looking Good Compared to Trudeau Foundation Law Prof, Timothy Caulfield Among the conscientious doctors subjected to the malicious professional abuses by College officials are Drs. Mark Trozzi, Roger Hodkinson, William Makis, Charles Hoffe and several others. In researching the Alberta College and its relationship with Alberta Health Services (AHS), Dr. William Makis discovered clear and definitive evidence of a pedophilia/ child trafficking ring operating with protections at the highest levels of AHS and its allied agencies in British Columbia.
Dr. Makis has formulated very explicit findings on the protection of the crime of pedophilia, including by the Alberta and BC Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Makis names names and gets very explicit about who signed off on what. The College/AHS/NDP Party lenience when it comes to the sexual abuse of children is very different that the ruthless treatment of doctors who take their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm seriously.
Doing No Harm (pictured with squash and onions)
No comments:
Post a Comment