Search:Casey

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Multiple federal agencies are warning that Iran-linked hackers have been targeting U.S. water systems and other industries that use programmable-logic controllers (PLC) made by Israeli firm Unitronics, as the Israel–Hamas war simmers in the background.

Hackers affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have engaged in "malicious cyber activity" targeting PLC operational technology devices used in the U.S. water and wastewater systems sector, and in other industries including energy, food, and beverage manufacturing, since at least Nov. 22, the agencies said in a Dec. 1 alert.

The agencies that issued the warning include the FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the National Security Agency (NSA), with the Israel National Cyber Directorate (INCD) joining in the advisory.

This IRGC-linked cyberattack group (known variously as CyberAv3ngers, CyberAveng3rs, or Cyber Avengers) has been compromising default credentials in Unitronics devices since at least Nov. 22, the agencies said.

After hacking the PLC devices in multiple states, CyberAv3ngers left the following defacement message: “You have been hacked, down with Israel. Every equipment ‘made in Israel’ is CyberAv3ngers legal target.”

The cyber group has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against critical infrastructure in Israel starting in 2020; it has recently turned its attention to targets in the United States, a key ally of Israel as it battles the Hamas terror group in response to the Oct. 7 attacks against Israel.

One high-profile attack by CyberAv3ngers targeted a water authority near Pittsburgh on Nov. 25, prompting congressional lawmakers to demand an investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and triggering the latest multi-agency warning that other water and sewage-treatment utilities, and other industries, may be vulnerable.

The PLC devices regulate processes including pressure, temperature, and fluid flow, according to Unitronics.

Pennsylvania Water Utility Attacked

A cyberattack by the Iran-linked group on Nov. 25 targeted the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, forcing the utility to switch to manual operations; officials said water quality wasn't compromised.

"The affected municipality’s water authority immediately took the system offline and switched to manual operations—there is no known risk to the municipality’s drinking water or water supply," the CISA said in a Nov. 28 notice.

While water quality wasn't affected this time, the agency said that such cyberattacks do have the potential to threaten the ability of water and wastewater systems to provide clean drinking water to residents and to effectively manage wastewater.

The hackers accomplished their attack by exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses, including poor password security and exposure to the internet, according to the CISA. The agency urged water and wastewater facilities to take preventive measures including changing passwords and disconnecting the PLCs from the open internet.

Several Pittsburgh-based cybersecurity firms said that utility companies are more vulnerable to cyberattacks targeting operational technology because many of these systems are dated and monitored infrequently.

"Take a Fortune 500, or any type of large manufacturer or utility—instead of breaking in through their firewalls and trying to get to their data, [hackers have] the ability to try to go in and interfere with their systems," David Kane, CEO of Pittsburgh-based Ethical Intruder, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"I think you're gonna see a big rise in that because there's just so few protections on it," he said, adding that an attack on the operational technology side is "very alarming."

In its latest warning, the CISA and the other agencies shared a number of indicators of compromise (IOC), as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) associated with the Iran-linked cyber group's operations.

Lawmakers Demand Probe

The cyberattack prompted several congressional lawmakers from Pennsylvania to demand that the Department of Justice (DOJ) launch an investigation into how the foreign hacking group managed to breach a U.S.-based water facility.

"Any attack on our critical infrastructure is unacceptable," U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) said in a post on X. "It poses a threat not only to Western PA, but also the nation."

Mr. Deluzio, along with U.S. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on Nov. 28, saying that Americans need to be confident that their drinking water and other basic infrastructure is safe.

“If a hack like this can happen here in western Pennsylvania, it can happen anywhere else in the United States,” the lawmakers wrote.

The attack came less than a month after a federal appeals court decision prompted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind a rule that would have obliged U.S. public water systems to include cybersecurity testing in their regular federally mandated audits.

The rollback was triggered by a federal appeals court decision in a case brought by Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa, and joined by a water utility trade group.

Unitronics didn't respond by press time to queries as to whether other facilities with its equipment may have been hacked or could be vulnerable.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have been discussing the latest Irish law to crackdown on free speech.  Yet, even with the criminalization of speech, there is apparently still the danger of citizens reading or hearing facts from reporters that are best kept from them. Thus, Kitty Holland, a correspondent with the Irish Times, is defending the media’s decision to suppress stories that would “incite hatred” and undermine journalistic viewpoints.

The comments came in a BBC interview regarding the victim impact statement of the boyfriend of Ashling Murphy, who was murdered in 2022 by an immigrant. 

Ryan Casey stated in part:

It just sickens me to the core that someone can come to this country, be fully supported in terms of social housing, social welfare, and free medical care for over 10 years… over 10 years… never hold down a legitimate job, and never once contribute to society in any way shape or form… can commit such a horrendous evil act of incomprehensible violence on such a beautiful, loving and talented person who in fact, worked for the state, educating the next generation and represented everything that is good about Irish society.

I feel like this country is no longer the country that Ashling and I grew up in, and Ireland has officially lost its innocence when a crime of this magnitude can be perpetrated in broad daylight. This country needs to wake up. This time, things have got to change, we have to once and for all start putting the safety of not only Irish people — but everybody in this country who works hard, pays taxes, raises families and overall contributes to society — first.

We don’t want to see any other family in this country go through what we have gone through and are continuing to go through. I myself have a little sister and honestly, just the thought of her walking the streets of any village, town or city in this country alone makes me physically sick and quite frankly absolutely terrifies me as this country is simply not safe anymore!

This time, if real change does not happen, if the safety of people living in this country is further ignored, I’m afraid our country is heading down a very dangerous path and you can be certain that we will not be the last family to be in this position.

The host asked:

“Those were very interesting comments, weren’t they?”

Holland disagreed and said that they had to be suppressed in the best interests of the public:

“I think elements of them were not good,. They were incitement to hatred, and I think that’s why the media left out aspects of them. I think they were right to not include [Casey’s full comments in news reports]. I don’t think that they were helpful, and this is the kind of thing that the far right latches on to.”

What was striking was the ease with which Holland moves directly into the suppression of a story as the guardian of the public good. Some news is simply “not helpful” so the media should not allow the public to be exposed to it.

Holland previously won the Journalist of the Year, News Reporter of the Year, and the Overall winner of the Justice Media Awards.

Holland’s view is consistent with many in the media in the United States today.

I have long been a critic of what I called “advocacy journalism” as it began to emerge in journalism schools. These schools encourage students to use their “lived expertise” and to “leave[] neutrality behind.” Instead, of neutrality, they are pushing “solidarity [as] ‘a commitment to social justice that translates into action.’”

For example, we previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done. No need to give credence to opposing views. It is a familiar reality for those of us in higher education, which has been increasingly intolerant of opposing or dissenting views.

Downie recounted how news leaders today

“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

There was a time when all journalists shared a common “identity” as professionals who were able to separate their own bias and values from the reporting of the news.

Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press declared “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”

In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”  Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.” 

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.

Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”

At the same time, outlets like National Public Radio have abandoned the rule that journalists should not engage in public protests.

NPR declared that it would allow employees to participate in political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” So it remained up to the editors if a reporter could join a pro-life protest (unlikely) or a pro-gun control protest (very likely).

Likewise, American politicians (including Barack Obama) have called upon the media to actively frame news to shape public opinion.  This includes support for the widespread censorship of opposing views on social media.

The Holland interview shows how matter-of-fact the cause of censorship has become for reporters.  The immediate question is not whether it was news to report (which it certainly was), but whether the news would further the cause or narrative of the media.

There has always been media bias, but it is now openly acknowledged and embraced by reporters. They view themselves now as the guardians protecting citizens from harmful information or news that they cannot put into the proper perspective. Information is treated like sugary drinks under the Big Gulp laws, you are better off having others decide what is healthy for you to consume . . . or to know.

Here is the full victim impact statement.

 'I lost so much more than my girlfriend. I’ve lost mypartner in life, my closest friend, my best friend'

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

As the Great Unravelling progresses, we shall be seeing many negative developments, some of them unprecedented...

Only a year ago, the average person was still hanging on to the belief that the world is in a state of recovery, that, however tentative, the economy was on the mend.

And this is understandable. After all, the media have been doing a bang-up job of explaining the situation in a way that treats recovery as a general assumption. The only point of discussion is the method applied to achieve the recovery, but the recovery itself is treated as a given.

However, as thorough a distraction as the media (and the governments of the world) have provided, the average person has begun to recognise that something is fundamentally wrong. He now has a gut feeling that, even if he is not well-versed enough to describe in economic terms what is incorrect in the endless chatter he sees on his television, he now senses that the situation will not end well.

I tend to liken his situation to someone who suddenly finds all the lights off in his house. He stumbles around in the dark, trying to feel his way. Although he can picture in his mind what the layout of his house is, he is having trouble navigating, often bumping into things. This is similar to the attempt to see through the media and government smokescreens during normal times.

But soon, as his government undergoes collapse, he will be getting some bigger surprises. He will find that the furniture has inexplicably been moved around. Objects are not where they are supposed to be, and it is no longer possible to reason his way through the problem of navigating in the dark.

Many of those who observe the daily news reports are beginning to figure out that they are being fed misinformation. Many are beginning to recognise that neither political party truly represents them or, for that matter, is even concerned for their welfare.

These folks are now navigating in the dark.

But the bigger surprises have not yet occurred. There will be a certain amount of lead-up, plus a great deal of confusion, but the actual occurrences will be sudden. No one will be able to predict the dates on which they occur, except those very few people who control the triggers to these events.

Crashes in the Markets

Major bull markets rarely end with a whimper. They end with a major upside spike. And, unfortunately, brokers and investors alike tend to think that, if the market has been up for the last week, the last month, or the last year, it can be expected to be up again tomorrow. This makes them prime pickings for governments who may choose to falsely inflate a given market, creating an upside spike to encourage investors to toss their last few coins into the pot, just before the bottom drops out.

In previous eras, it could take time for people to sell, and even in panic times, the bloodletting was not instantaneous. However, with the Internet, all that is necessary is a major sell-off by one entity—one that goes through the stops of a large number of investors, and in a flash, the market goes though the floor. (Editor’s note: Stops are orders placed with a broker to sell a security when it reaches a certain price.) The average investor wakes in the morning to find that he has been wiped out.

Commitments by Governments

Should there be a currency crash, as is expected in many countries, promises made by governments will be abandoned suddenly, as though they had never existed. Whilst millions of people will find themselves lost, unable to function without their entitlements, governments will evade their guilt through finger-pointing. Tories will blame Labour; Labour will blame the Tories. (The equivalent will take place in other countries.) The net result will be the disappearance of entitlements, either in part or in total. The public will take out its anger through increased hatred of whichever party it is that they already consider to be the evil one. They will fail to understand that collapse was unavoidable.

Assumed National Strengths Will Vanish

International alliances will fall away. Former allies will suddenly not be at the side of the failing nation.

Former friends will sign alliances with the other side.

Trade agreements will suddenly cease.

Wealth, initiative, and favour will flow to the new foremost country and its allies.

All of the above will happen incrementally—not by any means on the same day—but in each case, the actual occurrence will be sudden.

Just as Julius Caesar was at his peak of power when his fellow members of the Senate drew their knives, a powerful nation is coddled right until the time of its fall. In this regard, the US will see the greatest abandonment of loyalties that any nation will experience.

(The greater the empire, the greater the pretence of loyalty to it. And the greater the abandonment when the fall comes.)

When an empire collapses, it dies slowly. Unless it comes to an end through conquest, it deteriorates in a series of sudden jolts. Its leaders grasp at anything that might cause a delay, even if this means a worse outcome in the end. The process may take years and even decades. However, it is in the first few years that the major events occur—the events that create the most significant damage.

This occurs for two reasons. The first is that the leaders of the country, believing in their own power, believe that they can maintain control of their trade, their overseas control, their military, etc. and find that, when the crashes come, the rats desert the ship in every area. The second reason is that any empire builds its strength upon lies and exaggeration as much as it builds on its true attributes. After a crash, these lies and exaggerations fall away, and in a short time, it becomes clear that the empire was, in its latter stages, a house of cards.

The warning signs are already taking place but are not heavily publicised.

The stage is set, and we are approaching the first major events.

The victims in this play are, unfortunately, the average people, who simply hope to have a decent life. They will be caught unawares and unable to even understand what has occurred, let alone take action to save themselves. Those who have not spent the previous years educating themselves and preparing an alternative life will suffer most greatly.

All who live in a country that is undergoing collapse will be negatively affected. Some will do better than others, but to live on this slim hope is much like being fortunate enough to live on the outskirts of Hiroshima in 1945.

There is little comfort in being one of the least injured. Better to have been in another country altogether - both during the actual event and during the terrible time that is sure to follow.

*  *  *

The political and economic climate is constantly changing… and not always for the better. Obtaining the political diversification benefits of a second passport is crucial to ensuring you won’t fall victim to a desperate government. That’s why Doug Casey and his team just released a new complementary report, “The Easiest Way to a Second Passport.” It contains all the details about one of the easiest countries to obtain a second passport from. Click here to download it now.

Authored by Patricia Tolson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The 2024 presidential election cycle is predicted to be the most expensive in U.S. history.

Former President Donald Trump holds a comfortable lead in total contribution receipts with $56.7 million, according to data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the first week of November.

President Joe Biden, seeking a second term in the White House, placed second, with $44.7 million.

President Trump's Republican rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, placed third, with $31.6 million.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who switched from the Democratic ticket to run as an independent, placed fourth with $15.1 million.

Joe Biden

With a 56 percent disapproval rating in the most recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, a victory in 2024 will be challenging for the current president. Here are some of his major donors.

Laurene Powell Jobs

Laurene Powell Jobs is the widow of tech entrepreneur Steve Jobs. On July 7, 2022, Ms. Powell Jobs accepted a Medal of Freedom from President Biden on behalf of her husband.

She is also a trustee of the Ford Foundation and the founder and president of Emerson Collective—a philanthropic organization helping people "from all communities" to "achieve their full potential." The organization is the majority owner of The Atlantic magazine. She is also board chair of College Track, a nonprofit she founded in 1997 that helps students from underserved communities achieve their education goals.

Ms. Powell Jobs is the co-founder and board chair of the XQ Institute, "dedicated to rethinking the high school experience so that every student graduates ready to succeed in life."

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, her net worth sits at about $10.3 billion.

FEC records show that Ms. Powell Jobs contributed $929,000 to the Biden Victory Fund as well as two contributions of $3,300 to the Biden for President PAC on Sept. 20.

Casey Wasserman

Casey Wasserman is the founder, CEO, and chairman of Wasserman, a sports marketing and talent management firm. He is also chairman of LA28, the organizing committee for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and president and CEO of the Wasserman Foundation, which supports education, service, health, arts, and culture, as well as global initiatives.

As reported by Inside The Games, Mr. Wasserman wrote a letter to the International Olympic Committee in 2020 calling for the organization to ease the restrictions of Rule 50, which says, “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

FEC records show that Mr. Wasserman contributed $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund as well as two donations of $3,300 to the Biden for President PAC on Sept. 27.

Jeffrey Katzenberg

Jeffrey Katzenberg is a Hollywood film and television producer who served as chief executive of the well-known animation studio, DreamWorks, which he co-founded with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. Prior to founding DreamWorks, Mr. Katzenberg was chairman of Walt Disney Studios, where he oversaw the release of several highly profitable animated features, such as The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King.

His net worth is estimated to be about $900 million.

Mr. Katzenberg also serves as a co-chair of President Biden's reelection campaign, where he helps with fundraising and provides advice on messaging.

FEC data show that Mr. Katzenberg has been a prolific contributor to Democratic candidates and PACs for decades.

On April 28, he contributed $889,600 to the Biden Victory Fund and two donations of $3,300 to Biden for President.

On April 27, Mr. Katzenberg's wife, Marilyn, also contributed $889,600 to the Biden Victory Fund.

In May 2023, Mr. Katzenberg told Financial Times that he would pledge “all the resources” President Biden needs to win reelection in 2024.

Donald Trump

Polling data collected by RealClearPolitics shows that President Trump is leading President Biden in all but two of the head-to-head matchup surveys released by various polling outlets Nov. 17.

Several billionaires have donated to Make America Great Again Inc., a leading Trump-aligned Super PAC, during the first half of 2023.

Phil Ruffin

According to his profile on Casino.org, Phil Ruffin—an 88-year-old casino and hotel mogul—is one of the most successful, self-made businessmen in Las Vegas. He is the owner of Circus Circus and the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino. He is also a 50 percent stakeholder in the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas, along with the former president.

Forbes estimates Mr. Ruffin's net worth is about $2.7 billion.

FEC data show that Mr. Ruffin made two $1 million contributions—one on April 26 and the other on June 15—to the Make America Great Again PAC. He also made an $11,600 contribution to the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee on May 1, and a $3,300 contribution to Donald J. Trump for President 2024.

Mr. Ruffin is not solely dedicated to Republican candidates. In the past, he donated to support John Kerry's and former President Barack Obama's presidential campaigns.

Charles Kushner

Charles Kushner is the father of Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's daughter, Ivanka.

After his family immigrated to the United States in the aftermath of the Soviet occupation of Poland, Mr. Kushner completed high school and went on to study law at the Hofstra University School of Law. After practicing law for several years, he used his father’s business assets to found Kushner Companies in 1985, which he built into a successful real estate development empire.

In March 2005, The New York Times reported that Mr. Kushner pleaded guilty to tax evasion, witness tampering, and making illegal campaign donations. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison.

On Dec. 23, 2020, President Trump issued a pardon for Mr. Kushner.

FEC records show that Mr. Kushner contributed $1 million to Make America Great Again Inc. on June 5.

The FEC's data also indicate that between 1987 and 2020, Mr. Kushner's political contributions were given strictly to Democratic candidates and PACs, including a $1,000 contribution on April 24, 1987, to President Biden's first presidential endeavor.

In 2016, Forbes estimated the Kushner family's net worth to be about $1.8 billion.

Robert "Woody" Johnson

Robert "Woody" Johnson is the co-owner of the New York Jets. His wealth is a product of his great-grandfather, Robert Wood Johnson, who founded Johnson & Johnson in 1886. From 2017 to 2021, he served as President Trump's ambassador to the United Kingdom.

According to Forbes, Mr. Johnson's net worth is about $3.1 billion.

FEC records show that Mr. Johnson contributed $1 million to Make America Great Again Inc. on April 26.

Additional contributions to the PAC in 2022 totaled over $133,000.

In 2020, Reuters reported that Mr. Johnson—who had no previous experience in diplomacy—was investigated by the U.S. State Department's Office of the Attorney General regarding "offensive or derogatory comments, based on an individual’s race, color, sex, or religion," which he was alleged to have made during his tenure as ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Authored by Doug Casey via the International Man,

International Man: Everyone knows that the US government has been bankrupt for many years. But we thought it might be instructive to see its current cash-flow situation.

The US government’s budget is the biggest in the history of the world and is growing at an uncontrollable rate.

Below is a chart of the budget for the most recent fiscal year, which had a deficit of nearly $1.7 trillion.

Before we get into the specific items in the budget, what is your take on the Big Picture for the US budget?

Doug Casey: The biggest expenditure for the US government are so-called entitlements. It’s strange how the word “entitlements” has been legitimized. Are people really entitled to the government paying for their health, retirement, and welfare? In a moral society, the answer is: No. Entitlements destroy personal responsibility, legitimize theft, destroy wealth, and create antagonisms.

The fact is that once people have an “entitlement,” they come to rely on it, and you can’t easily take it away. The Chinese call that breaking somebody’s rice bowl. In the case of the American welfare state, it’s more a question of breaking a whipped dog’s doggy bowl. It’s a shame because many have come to rely on their mother, the State, not entirely through their own fault. The US has become pervasively corrupt.

The World Economic Forum (WEF)—a pox upon them—isn’t entirely incorrect when it arrogantly calls most people “useless mouths.” An increasing number produce absolutely nothing but only consume at the expense of others. Courtesy of the State.

There’s little doubt in my mind that the government’s expenses are going way up as people demand more. While receipts go down as the Greater Depression deepens. Which it will, as the economy is burdened by evermore taxes, regulations, and currency debasement. That’s on top of the gigantic debt the government and country are buried under.

The government reminds me of a poker player on tilt, betting more and more crazily in hope of magic or luck to bail him out. It always ends badly.

We’ve watched this progression accelerate since at least the 1960’s—a slow motion train wreck. But the inevitable has finally turned into the imminent.

International Man: What are your thoughts on Social Security, Health, and Medicare?

With an aging population, it seems politically impossible to make any meaningful cuts here. On the contrary, spending in these areas is likely to explode.

Doug Casey: They should be abolished. I’ve said this many times before, but it bears repeating as often as possible because everybody forgets the most basic of the basics. Namely, the government, as an instrument of force, should be limited to protecting people from physical force. And nothing else.

That implies a police system to defend people from force within, a military to defend against foreign aggressors, and a court system to allow people to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force. I’d further argue that those three things are so important to the conduct of a civil society that they shouldn’t be left to the kind of people who inevitably gravitate towards government. But that’s a different subject.

Looking at these three things you mentioned in particular, they’re complete disasters. They’re fiscally unsound, will bankrupt the US government, and, therefore, bankrupt the country itself, especially with an aging population.

Social Security seemed like a good idea at the time so that poor people wouldn’t be left totally without an income in old age. But the fact is that Social Security is a classic Ponzi scheme. Its taxes have gone from a trivial percentage to 12.4%.

It’s so high that people are on the bottom end of society, who it’s meant to help, are precluded from saving on their own. Social Security is both a practical and moral disaster.

As for Medicare, how is it your problem if another has failed to take care of his body? Your body is your primary possession. Should it also be your problem if somebody fails to take care of his car? Should the State fix all your property?

Should the government have anything to do with health? No. It’s strictly a matter of personal responsibility. Of course, if the State believes it owns you, like a milk cow, the cattle can expect food to show up, as will medicine if they get sick.

Government entitlement schemes encourage everyone to try to live at the expense of his neighbors. They’re intrinsically dehumanizing, corrupting, and degrading. They’re a bad deal all around.

International Man: With the most precarious geopolitical situation since World War 2, “National Defense” seems unlikely to be cut.

Instead, so-called defense spending is all but certain to increase.

What is your take?

Doug Casey: The United States’ “defense” spending exceeds that of the next 10 nations combined, including Russia and China. Most of that spending goes into the maw of five major defense companies. A decade or two ago, there used to be 30 or 40 defense companies. But they’ve now consolidated, the better to deal with Big Government.

They increasingly make only expensive high-tech weapons, which may prove totally useless in today’s environment. For instance, the US is currently suffering an invasion of feet people across the southern border—millions and millions of young males, of alien race, language, religion, and culture, in the last two years alone. We may yet wind up with a civil war in the US, on top of several insane foreign wars.

These high-tech weapons, in the process of bankrupting the US and enriching the defense establishment, will prove largely useless. Meanwhile, military personnel are being gutted. It’s no secret that the services can’t recruit enough people to keep their numbers where they want them. That’s in good measure because ESG and DEI have been insinuated throughout the military like slow-acting poisons. The military is no longer a meritocracy. Now, it’s critical to be the right color and gender. George Patton would quit in disgust.

On top of all that, defense spending is a provocation to other countries. It’s like waving around a giant golden hammer. They’re correctly afraid that everything has started to look like a nail to the US.

International Man: The net interest expense on the national debt was $659 billion in FY 2023, which is sure to rise.

The US government needs to roll over a significant portion of its existing debt issued when interest rates were 0% in an environment of much higher and rising rates.

What are your thoughts on this item?

Doug Casey: Interest on the debt is the next big thing, in addition to entitlements and out-of-control “defense” spending.

They used to say, “Don’t worry about the national debt; we owe it to ourselves,” which was always ridiculous because some specific people always owed it to other specific people.

But the US can no longer generate adequate capital to fund the government’s debt. And I hasten to point out that the government is not “We the People.” The government is a separate entity, with its own interests, as distinct as General Motors.

In the recent past, the national debt has been financed not by Americans, but by foreigners. At this point, however, foreigners no longer want to own the debt of a bankrupt entity whose currency is nothing but a floating abstraction. The government can only finance its debt by selling it to its central bank, the Fed, which creates new dollars to buy the debt.

As the dollar inevitably loses value, interest rates will rise. That’s regardless of what the Fed does or doesn’t want. The market will demand higher interest rates to finance the debt. You don’t want to own bonds.

International Man: US government expenses seem to have nowhere to go but up.

Is there any chance the US government can reform and return to a sustainable basis?

If not, what are the implications?

Doug Casey: The US government is bankrupt. It’s not just the official $34 trillion. The real number is several times higher, considering contingent liabilities. It’s probably more like $100 trillion. This debt will never be repaid. The US government is like Wiley Coyote after he runs off a cliff.

In addition, the average American is deeply in debt—student loans, mortgage debt, credit card debt, auto debt, and much more. The country is in big trouble. Frankly, there’s no practical way out at this point except to officially declare bankruptcy.

I realize serious change is impossible since the situation is so out of control. But here are six things to imagine—for a start:

1. Allow the collapse of all bankrupt entities. No bailouts, subsidies, or guarantees for banks, insurers, corporations, or anything. 

There will be plenty in the coming years. Bailout money is always wasted. Most of the real wealth now owned by the bankrupt entities will still exist.

It will simply change ownership. But that’s not nearly enough. At this point, it would be a half-measure, a 3-foot rope over a 12-foot gap. If you allow the collapse of unprofitable enterprises without changing the conditions that created the problem, recovery is going to be even harder. So…

2. Deregulate. Contrary to what almost everyone thinks, the main purpose of regulation is not to protect consumers but to entrench the current order. Regulation prevents new institutions from arising quickly and cheaply.

Does the Department of Agriculture really need 100,000 employees to regulate fewer than two million farms in the US? Abolish it.

Has the Department of Energy, created in 1977 to somehow solve a temporary crisis, done anything of value with its 110,000 employees and contractors and $32 billion annual budget? Abolish it.

How about the terminally corrupt Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had by 100 years. Abolish it.

The FTC, SEC, FCC, FAA, DOT, HHS, HUD, Labor, Commerce, and many more, serve little or no useful public purpose. Eliminate them, and the entire economy would blossom – except for the parasitical lobbying and legal trades. There are hundreds of agencies like these. Most aren’t just useless. They’re actively destructive.

3. Abolish the Fed. This is the actual engine of inflation. Money is just a medium of exchange and a store of value; you don’t need a central bank to have money. In fact, central banks are always destructive. They benefit only the cronies who get their money first.

What would we use as money? It doesn’t matter as long as it’s a commodity that can’t be created out of thin air. Gold is the obvious choice. Bitcoin may turn out to be excellent.

The whole idea of a central bank is a swindle. Massive bailouts and optional wars can’t be done without it.

4. Cut taxes by 50%… to start. The economy would boom. The money won’t be needed with all the agencies gone. Certainly not if the next two points are followed.

5. Default on the national debt. I realize this is a shocker unless you recall that the debt will never be paid anyway. Why should the next several generations have to pay for the stupidity of their parents?

A default sounds dishonorable—and it is in civil society. But government is different. It hasn’t been “We the People” for a long time; it’s now a self-dealing behemoth run by cronies. It’s like a building with a rotten foundation—better to bring it down with a controlled demolition than wait for it fall unpredictably.

Governments default all the time, though most defaults are subtle, through inflation. In an outright default, however, the only people who get hurt are those who lent money to an institution that can only repay them by stealing money from others. They should be punished.

6. Disentangle and disengage. The entanglements the US needs to escape prominently include the UN and NATO. Spending could easily be cut 50%. The US combat troops now in over 100 foreign countries can come home. They’re not “defending” anything but local collaborators while picking up bad habits and antagonizing the locals. Spending on the military and its sport wars significantly adds to the economy’s problems.

Editor’s Note: The economic trajectory is troubling. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation.

That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it.

Click here to download it now.

After journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger won a $100,000 award from the National Journalism Center / DAO for excellence in investigative journalism regarding the Twitter Files, WikiPedia editors threw a fit - with one, who goes by "Specifico", removing all mention of the award until other editors were in 'consensus for inclusion.'

Bari, Michael and I are very grateful for this significant award, which we hope will provide encouragement to future independent journalists to take on unpopular subjects and confront powerful institutions.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) November 2, 2023

First, from Taibbi's acceptance speech:

More than two dozen reporters worked on the Twitter Files at different times, including Lee Fang, Paul Thacker, David Zweig, Aaron Maté, Matt Farwell, and many others, across the political spectrum. Journalists from left-leaning publications and reporters with conservative backgrounds both worked on this story, which was unique enough to employ pseudonymous citizen journalists like “Techno Fog” and Pulitzer Prize winner Susan Schmidt. Susan is here tonight, and has a new Twitter Files piece coming out on Twitter and Racket in the coming days.

This was apparently too much for Wikipedia - which has been the de-facto leftist ministry of bullshit for years.

An editor who goes by "SPECIFICO" took it upon themselves to nuke the DAO award from Taibbi's profile, writing "I reverted the addition of this item. PPlease see the reason im my edit summary. It should not be re-added prior to consensus for inclusion."

2/2 This is what happened first. Report is they have relented: pic.twitter.com/vgXMtb7toJ

— Walter Kirn (@walterkirn) November 6, 2023

Another editor replied: "I am curious. How does one determine that an award is not "credible"?"

Specifico, as it were, is a total weirdo. Shocker, we know.

If you'd like to experience more of Wikipedia's legendary professionalism and integrity, I highly recommend clicking on SPECIFICO's username to view their personal page.

Behold, the "Master Editor" (which means they have 42,000+ edits!) who removed the Dao Prize mention: pic.twitter.com/pdB0uqSGQ4

— Casey Muratori (@cmuratori) November 6, 2023

Fortunately, less-woke minds prevailed, and the award is now visible on Taibbi's page.

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• Republicans and Democrats both have misconceptions about the energy sector, with the former often downplaying climate change and the latter misunderstanding oil industry operations.

• Oil prices are determined by global supply and demand, not by individual oil companies; thus, claims of oil companies causing inflation or gouging prices are misplaced.

• Implementing policies like windfall profits taxes on oil companies doesn't address the root issues of supply and demand, and it's essential for policymakers to have a comprehensive understanding of the energy sector for effective governance.

Good energy policy starts with a good understanding of energy issues. But both major political parties have glaring blind spots when it comes to understanding the energy sector.

Let me preface this column by noting that I am a registered Independent. I have major disagreements with both political parties, and I strive to approach issues from a completely objective viewpoint.

I think Republicans get it mostly wrong when it comes to climate change, and the importance of transitioning to alternative energy. But they seem to understand the current critical role of fossil fuels in the economy, and they mostly get it right when it comes to supporting nuclear power.

Democrats never seem to understand how the oil industry works. For example, look at the list of Democrats who signed onto the “Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax” introduced last year by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). In announcing the bill, Senator Whitehouse said it would “curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump.”

The bill was cosponsored by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jack Reed (D-RI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Bob Casey (D-PA). Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA-17) introduced the legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In addition to claims of price gouging, this same cast of characters has sometimes blamed oil company profits for inflation.

Here’s Senator Bernie Sanders doing that.

These politicians do not seem to understand that oil companies don’t control prices. Oil is the world’s most valuable commodity. Oil prices are set by buyers and sellers in global markets, based on supply and demand expectations.

Firms like ExxonMobil produce such a small share of the world’s oil they couldn’t move prices much if they wanted to. They benefit from high prices, but don’t set those prices. If they did, prices would never fall.

Saying profits cause inflation confuses cause and effect. It’s like saying hospitalizations cause car crashes. It is true that a car crash can result in hospitalization, but hospitalizations do not cause car crashes. If you believe the latter — and you try to address the problem by focusing on the hospital — you are working on the wrong problem.

Likewise, high profits in the oil industry and inflation are both caused by high oil prices. But high oil prices are caused by supply and demand factors.

Outside of rare circumstances, it’s impossible for oil companies to gouge you, because they don’t set the price. An example of true price gouging would be if a local gas station that sets its own prices doubled them when supply is ample. But Chevron earning more from high global prices set by markets is normal capitalism. That’s how the entire global commodity markets work.

I can only imagine that in the minds of some politicians, executives of Big Oil are meeting in smoke-filled boardrooms, rubbing their greedy hands together, and deciding to raise prices because Russia invaded Ukraine. But that’s not how any of this works.

If politicians want to address oil prices, they need to address the supply side and the demand side. When politicians propose windfall profits taxes on oil companies, intending to give rebates to consumers, it might sound good, but it doesn’t address the core issue.

High prices should signal consumers to use less energy, but rebates would diminish the price signal — which wouldn’t alleviate pressure on demand. On the supply side, punitive taxes on oil companies might sound appealing, but that’s less money that can be allocated to projects, which affects future supplies. Former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez learned this lesson the hard way, and Venezuela is still paying the price.

Some have expressed outrage that oil companies are using record profits to buy back shares or pay special dividends to shareholders. But it’s common for companies, not just in the oil industry, to buy back shares or pay dividends when profits are high. It’s a part of how our capitalist system works. If companies can issue shares, they should be able to buy them back.

For consumers worried about high oil prices, there are options. You can invest in an oil company. Thus, when oil prices rise, so do your shares. Or consider switching to an electric vehicle to reduce your reliance on fossil fuels.

In conclusion, understanding energy issues is crucial for effective policymaking, yet both major political parties often exhibit significant misunderstandings of the energy sector. By understanding the complexities of the energy sector, policymakers and consumers alike can make informed decisions that contribute to a more sustainable and economically sound future.

Via the International Man,

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Those of us who are libertarians have a tendency to speak frequently of “the New World Order.”

When doing so, we tend to be a bit unclear as to what the New World Order is.

Is it a cabal of the heads of the world’s governments, or just the heads of Western governments?

Certainly bankers are included somewhere in the mix, but is it just the heads of the Federal Reserve and the IMF, or does it also include the heads of JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.?

And how about the Rothschilds? And the Bundesbank—surely, they’re in there, too?

And the list goes on, without apparent end.

Certainly, all of the above entities have objectives to increase their own power and profit in the world, but to what degree do they act in concert? Although many prominent individuals, world leaders included, have proclaimed that a New World Order is their ultimate objective, the details of who’s in and who’s out are fuzzy. Just as fuzzy is a list of details as to the collective objectives of these disparate individuals and groups.

So, whilst most libertarians acknowledge “the New World Order,” it’s rare that any two libertarians can agree on exactly what it is or who it’s comprised of. We allow ourselves the luxury of referring to it without being certain of its details, because, “It’s a secret society,” as evidenced by the Bilderberg Group, which meets annually but has no formal agenda and publishes no minutes. We excuse ourselves for having only a vague perception of it, although we readily accept that it’s the most powerful group in the world.

This is particularly true of Americans, as Americans often imagine that the New World Order is an American construct, created by a fascist elite of US bankers and political leaders. The New World Order may be better understood by Europeans, as, actually, it’s very much a European concept—one that’s been around for quite a long time.

It may be said to have had its beginnings in ancient Rome. As Rome became an empire, its various emperors found that conquered lands did not automatically remain conquered. They needed to be managed—a costly and tedious undertaking. Management was far from uniform, as the Gauls could not be managed in the same manner as the Egyptians, who in turn, could not be managed like the Mesopotamians.

After the fall of Rome, Europe was in many ways a shambles for centuries, but the idea of “managing” Europe was revived with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The peace brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It brought together the Holy Roman Empire, The House of Habsburg, the Kingdoms of Spain and France, the Dutch Republic, and the Swedish Empire.

Boundaries were set, treaties were signed, and a general set of assumptions as to the autonomy within one’s borders were agreed, to the partial satisfaction of all and to the complete satisfaction of no one… Sound familiar?

Later, Mayer Rothschild made his name (and his fortune) by becoming the financier to the military adventures of the German Government. He then sent his sons out to England, Austria, France, and Italy to do the same—to create a New World Order of sorts, under the control of his family through national debt to his banks. (Deep Throat was right when he said, “Follow the Money.”)

So, the concept of a New World Order has long existed in Europe in various guises, but what does this tell us about the present and, more important, the future?

In our own time, we have seen presidents and prime ministers come and go, whilst their most prominent advisors, such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, continue from one administration to the next, remaining advisors for decades. Such men are often seen as the voices of reason that may be the guiding force that brings about a New World Order once and for all.

Mister Brzezinski has written in his books that order in Europe depends upon a balance with Russia, which must be created through the control of Ukraine by the West. He has stated repeatedly that it’s critical for this to be done through diplomacy, that warfare would be a disaster. Yet, he has also supported the US in creating a coup in Ukraine. When Russia became angered at the takeover, he openly supported American aggression in Ukraine, whilst warning that Russian retaliation must not be tolerated.

Henry Kissinger, who has literally written volumes on his “pursuit of world peace” has, when down in the trenches, also displayed a far more aggressive personality, such as his angry recommendation to US President Gerald Ford to “smash Cuba” when Fidel Castro’s military aid to Angola threatened to ruin Mr. Kissinger’s plans to control Africa.

Whilst the most “enlightened” New World Order advisors may believe that they are working on the “Big Picture,” when it comes down to brass tacks, they clearly demonstrate the same tendency as the more aggressive world leaders, and reveal that, ultimately, they seek to dominate. They may initially recommend diplomacy but resort to force if the other side does not cave to “reason” quickly.

If we stand back and observe this drama from a distance, what we see is a theory of balance between the nations of Europe (and, by extension, the whole world)—a balance based upon intergovernmental agreements, allowing for centralised power and control.

This theory might actually be possible if all the countries of the world were identical in every way, and the goals of all concerned were also identical. But this never has been and can never be the case. Every world leader and every country will differ in its needs and objectives. Therefore, each may tentatively agree to common conditions, as they have going back to the Peace of Westphalia, yet, even before the ink has dried, each state will already be planning to gain an edge on the others.

In 1914, Europe had (once again) become a tangle of aspirations of the various powers—a time bomb, awaiting only a minor incident to set it off. That minor incident occurred when a Serbian national assassinated an Austrian crown prince. Within a month, Europe exploded into World War. As Kissinger himself has observed in his writings, “[T]hey all contributed to it, oblivious to the fact that they were dismantling an international order.”

Since 1648, for every Richelieu that has sought to create a New World Order through diplomacy, there has been a Napoleon who has taken a militaristic approach, assuring that the New World Order applecart will repeatedly be upset by those who are prone to aggression.

Further, even those who seek to operate through diplomacy ultimately will seek aggressive means when diplomatic means are not succeeding.

A true world order is unlikely.

What may occur in its stead would be repeated attempts by sovereign states to form alliances for their mutual benefit, followed by treachery, one- upmanship, and ultimately, aggression. And very possibly a new World War.

But of one thing we can be certain: Tension at present is as great as it was in 1914. We are awaiting only a minor incident to set off dramatically increased international aggression. With all the talk that’s presently about as to a New World Order, what I believe will occur instead will be a repeat of history.

If this belief is correct, much of the world will decline into not only external warfare, but internal control. Those nations that are now ramping up into police states are most at risk, as the intent is already clearly present. All that’s needed is a greater excuse to increase internal controls. Each of us, unless we favour being engulfed by such controls, might be advised to internationalise ourselves—to diversify ourselves so that, if push comes to shove, we’re able to get ourselves and our families out of harm’s way.

*  *  *

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey just released Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse an urgent new PDF report. It explains what could come next and what you can do about it so you don’t become a victim. Click here to download it now.

Authored by Michael Chamberlain via RealClear Wire,

If President Biden is serious about finding a renewable energy source, he should look down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA’s door revolves fast enough to power the nation for decades, with the rate of spin exceeded only by the attempts to provide cover over possible ethics missteps.

Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) has developed an extensive file of probable ethics violations by senior EPA officials. Many of these violations appear to occur because the EPA has ignored or sidestepped rules governing “the revolving door” between government and the private sector, though they certainly don’t stop there. As our Ethics Waiver Report demonstrated, the Biden Administration has perfected the practice of recruiting appointees from the universe of aligned environmental activist groups, state agencies, and universities. The inevitable conflicts of interest are buried under a blizzard of ethics waivers and then, after putting in enough time to learn the federal ropes, some go back to more lucrative and senior positions outside.

For example, Casey Katims joined EPA from Washington State where he worked for Governor Jay Inslee, who helped create the U.S. Climate Alliance (USCA). As EPA’s deputy associate administrator for intergovernmental relations, Katims kept extremely close relations with USCA and eventually left EPA to join it as executive director.

Melissa Hoffer departed the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office to become acting General Counsel at EPA, where she was given a waiver to participate in 37 pending matters involving Massachusetts. When she left the EPA, she ignored her obligation to timely advise the ethics office of negotiations to rejoin Massachusetts government as its first-ever “Climate Czar.” That failure is likely a violation of the Stock Act (a criminal statute) – inexcusable for a senior lawyer with Hoffer’s experience and responsibilities. It was made worse by the career agency ethics official, Justina Fugh, designated to enforce the rules. Sadly, this is far from the only incident in which Ms. Fugh appears to have played a central role in moving the goalposts to thwart violations from landing on senior officials.

Many EPA appointments came from powerful, well-funded environmental special interest groups. Alejandra Nunez joined EPA from the Sierra Club. Tomás Carbonell was at the Environmental Defense Fund. Dimple Chaudhary worked for the Natural Resources Defense Council. All three were attorneys for organizations that constantly have business before the EPA, and as of January 2021 were party to dozens of pending lawsuits with the agency. Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, attorney Marianne Engelman-Lado, who’d been at Vermont Law School, Yale, and Earthjustice, was granted a waiver to engage with a former client because the “overlap of recusals” threatened her office’s ability to function.

Then there’s Joseph Goffman, the principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), who is currently performing the delegated duties of the assistant administrator and the subject of three PPT ethics complaints. Goffman, formerly with Harvard University, looked to the same career ethics official who sought to bail out Ms. Hoffer to “unring the [ethics] bell” of an admitted ethics violation. PPT discovered that at least five Harvard-affiliated individuals who reached out to Goffman were later hired at EPA, including in career positions, and that emails between him and his former employer in just his first few months at the agency totaled over 100 pages! Add in his apparent failure to timely divest from dozens of investments that created financial conflicts of interest and Goffman is a front-runner for favorite client at the EPA’s ethics office.

Our concerns extend beyond communicating with and giving preferential treatment to former employers. EPA leadership, with the creative assistance of career ethics officials like Ms. Fugh, have also brushed aside emoluments clause concerns (senior EPA science official Christopher Frey’s ties to a Chinese university) and traditional outside solicitation restrictions (Georgetown Law Board of Advisors and senior EPA lawyer Susannah Weaver) when it meant allowing their appointees to maintain their private sector relationships. While congressional oversight has occasionally made a difference – Mr. Goffman remains unconfirmed and Mr. Frey was eventually forced to resign his Chinese university post – Administrator Regan and his subordinates seem undeterred from signing off on these decisions.

Career officials also appear to have gotten in on the action. For instance, a pending consent decree concerning one of the largest Superfund cleanups in history (nearly $2 billion!) rests largely on the work of a former EPA employee, David Batson, who since leaving the agency in 2015 has gone on to land contracts with both the Department of Justice and the EPA to work on the same Superfund cleanup he actively worked on while at EPA. This is a big no-no, according to federal ethics laws.

The near farcical reasoning for so many ethics waivers, “oops” violations, outside employment approvals, and discarded post-employment restrictions demonstrates a culture unmoored from ethical norms. While the undivided support from an ethics office along the way has provided plausible deniability, the reality is that it has only served to deepen the rot that has nearly destroyed the public’s trust in its government.

Michael Chamberlain is the Director of Protect the Public’s Trust. 

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: President Biden is running for reelection in 2024.

However, many Americans are questioning Biden’s physical and mental faculties. He appears half asleep on many occasions—often forgetting his train of thought or stumbling on his words.

Biden will soon be 81, making him the oldest president in US history.

What’s your take?

Doug Casey: The very fact that he’s supposedly even contemplating running in 2024 is further proof that he’s non compos mentis. He’s so far gone that he doesn’t even realize what an embarrassment he is. But it’s not a question of his age, per se.

A lot of people in their eighties are sharp as a tack. Age slows you down, true. But if you’ve gained wisdom through many years of experience, you can still play the game. The problem with Biden isn’t so much that he’s decrepit and feeble—although those things are highly undesirable in a national leader. It’s that he lacks any semblance of ability, has no judgment, and is devoid of morality and ethics. The world is asking: How degraded are the American people that they could not just elect but are thinking of reelecting, such a pathetic shell?

Trump is only four years younger, but he appears hale and hardy. All this should be academic, however. It should, ideally, make little difference who the president is.

Switzerland is the most prosperous country in Europe, and nobody knows or cares who the president of Switzerland might be. It would be nice if the president of the US was nothing but a figurehead, someone respectable to set a moral tone and give a good example. Perhaps that’s the biggest reason Biden shouldn’t run. He’s almost the antithesis of a role model. Although admittedly superior to his thoroughly degenerate son, who he once identified as the most intelligent man he knew.

International Man: Despite the countless indictments against him, Donald Trump is still the frontrunner for the Republican ticket with an enormous lead.

What’s your perspective on Trump this time around?

Doug Casey: I did an interview here in 2016 when he first talked of running—and nothing has changed.

He has absolutely no philosophical core; he flies by the seat of his pants. Trump is popular because he’s a traditionalist and a nationalist. He wants the US to return to the values of a kinder and gentler era. However, he’s not a libertarian. He has no understanding of economics, as evidenced by the fact that he wants massive duties on imports. He has no fear of gigantic deficits. He’s fine with borrowing even more money. He’s quite willing to put on regulations when he arbitrarily thinks it’s a good idea.

At a time when the US is collapsing in on itself, bankrupt, crime-ridden, and overtaken by crazy wokeness, I believe most people would prefer a traditionalist—at least someone who’s not a Jacobin looking to overturn the whole basis of society. I hasten to add that Biden himself isn’t even the real problem—as degraded as he is—it’s the people who manipulate the doddering old fool. His cabinet and top officials are an assortment of criminal personalities. They are, without exception, stupid, incompetent, and/or psychotic. That’s a radical statement, but I believe it’s factual. The overweight tranny sporting an admirals costume while masquerading as a woman is far from the worst of the bunch.

At least Trump is something of an outsider. The people in the evil party hate him simply because he’s an outspoken traditionalist who resonates with the hoi polloi. They suffer from what’s known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

I’m not really a fan of Trump, except for the fact that he’s a traditionalist. It’s interesting that the people who do hate him, hate him just because he’s a traditionalist. I see zero evidence that he’s a criminal. He is just a successful self-promoter, a celebrity who made some money in real estate and has genuine concerns about his country. Plus, he’s very entertaining—that actually counts for something.

International Man: Now that actual libertarians seem to be running the Libertarian Party, do you see anything interesting coming from them in 2024?

Doug Casey: I neither follow nor care about the Libertarian Party. It only counts because it’s registered to run candidates in all 50 states. None of them have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning more than a local race for dogcatcher. That said, the major parties will each try to use it to draw votes from the other party. That was the case in 2016 when Johnson/Weld got 4.5 million votes, 3.3% of the total. That’s a big deal in a close election.

Except for Ron Paul and Harry Browne, who intelligently used the election as a bully platform to spread the philosophy, the Libertarian Party’s candidates have been non-entities. I’m sure that’ll be the case this year as well.

In fact, they’re worse than just narcissistic non-entities. Their 2016 candidate, Gary Johnson, was just a good-natured pothead who somehow got elected governor of New Mexico. He picked William Weld, ex-governor of Massachusetts and a classic Deep State operative, as his VP. How did that ever happen?

I understand the Libertarian Party has evicted the party-archs who promoted that ticket. I used to say, if you’re going to vote, at least vote Libertarian as a protest vote. But it really is a wasted vote from every point of view these days. Not that it really matters. I understand the arguments why you should vote, but the fact is that your vote counts about as much as a grain of sand on a beach, especially if the election is rigged.

International Man: Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, suggested a Trump/RFK ticket would win in a massive landslide.

Presuming the DNC rigs the primary against RFK Jr., what role do you see him playing in the general election?

Doug Casey: They’re both outspoken and very entertaining—90% of politics is entertainment. They mostly agree on Covid, which is wonderful. They’re both anti-war. They’re both anti-Deep State.

It’s possible that Bannon’s right; the public would love two refreshing semi-outsiders. But it would probably be like taking a couple of cats and tying their tails together.

Kennedy, as I explained before, is basically an old-style “reasonable” Democrat. He believes in a “safety net” (i.e. welfare), regulation, the green agenda, and the rest of it. So does Trump, to a great extent. It’s not that Bannon’s wrong; it’s just that the two of them would always try to overshadow each other. But at least they’re not woke Democrats…

In my view, the Republicans are the stupid party, and the Democrats are the evil party. Given a chance between stupid and evil, you should probably go for stupid. They might be less destructive. Although perversely, since stupidity is amorphous, illogical, and unpredictable, they could be just dangerous in a different way. It’s a classic Hobson’s Choice.

International Man: What sort of dirty tricks do you see occurring in the run-up to the 2024 election?

Is it possible the Deep State will find a way to cancel the election if it isn’t going their way?

Doug Casey: You may recall that in 2016, I placed a money bet that, against all odds, Trump would win. In 2020, I gave six reasons why the Democrats would win.

So I’m foolishly starting to think I’m a handicapper of the how hoi polloi will vote. Or at least who’s best at fixing an election.

The Democrats might win simply because the American electorate has become so corrupt; they accept socialism in principle. In addition, the Dems currently control the apparatus of the State and are aggressively using it to cement themselves in power.

They’re actual Jacobins, Neo-Marxists, and will do anything to stay in office. Like the way, they’re prosecuting Trump in four different jurisdictions for scores of nonsensical, fabricated charges. They’re attempting to bankrupt him with legal fees, de-legitimize him with unthinking voters, and tie up his time so it’s impossible for him to campaign.

This is the type of thing, like the extraordinary sentences handed down for the Jan 6 protests, that goes on in Third World countries. Serious MAGA people could go wild. It’s possible that we won’t even have an election in 2024, as outrageous as that sounds.

The Dems can’t run Biden. It’s egregious elder abuse; the old criminal is just a shell of a man. Nor can they run the cackling, dim-witted Kamala, even though many black people will predictably cry racism in today’s environment. She’s a parody of herself.

So, who can the Democrats run? Michelle Obama? She is way too much of a hot potato ultra-leftist. Another option is Gavin Newsom, who’s undistinguished by anything except being good-looking and running California into the ground. I don’t see anybody else with name recognition.

There are several other huge X factors. Between now and the election, we’re very likely to have a financial and economic crisis. The Greater Depression could well up from under the surface and explode like a volcano, creating chaos. The military crisis in the Ukraine could spin out of control into an actual war against Russia. The US continues to antagonize China, a big wild card. And Washington seems to be plumping for a war in North Africa.

Perhaps most important is the fact that the red people and the blue people in the US actually hate each other. It’s much more serious and widespread than any culture clash we had in the past, including the late 1960s and early 1970s.

It could lead to something resembling a civil war. The US Government itself is losing legitimacy with wide swaths of domestic and foreign public opinion. I know it’s outlandish to consider seriously, but is it possible that we could wind up with a military government in the US?

Although the US military has become corrupt and is also collapsing on itself, it’s about the only government institution that Americans still trust. In a time of chaos, when neither party can put forward a candidate, we could get a general as a (temporary) solution. Likely an opportunistic leftist like the recently defrocked Petraeus.

It’s a reasonably safe bet that 2024 is not going to be just a bad year but one for the record books.

*  *  *

Disturbing economic, political, and social trends are already in motion and now accelerating at breathtaking speed. The risks that lie ahead are too big and dangerous to ignore. That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive an economic collapse. It will help you understand what is unfolding right before our eyes and what you should do so you don’t get caught in the crosshairs. Click here to download the PDF now.

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

If you hold precious metals in your portfolio, there is a good chance you fear hyperinflation and the crash of fiat currencies.

You probably distrust governments in general and believe they are self-serving and have no interest in your economic well-being. It is likely that your holdings in gold are your lifeline – your hope to get you through these times while holding on to your wealth.

But have you ever given any thought to the possibility of having this lifeline confiscated by the authorities?

In my conversations with friends and associates, I have often raised this question. The typical responses:

“They’d never do that.”

“I’ll deal with that if and when it happens.”

“I just wouldn’t give it to them.”

I consider these “wishful thinking” responses.

It’s an interesting thought that the greatest threat to gold and silver investment might not be the possibility of losing on the speculation, but the government taking it away from you. It’s a thought that I’ve found few want to even think about, let alone discuss.

If you fall into this camp, you’re in good company. Some of the forecasters whom I respect most highly also treat it either as unlikely or at best, “something we may need to look at in the future.” To date, in conversing with top advisors worldwide, the two primary reasons they believe gold will not be confiscated are:

1. “Confiscation would mean the government acknowledges the reality of the value of gold.”

Yes, this is quite so. They would be changing their official view… which, of course, they do all the time. But I submit that all that they need to do is put the proper spin on it.

2. “They would meet greater resistance than they did back in ’33.”

I expect that this is also true, but that a plan will be put in place to deal with that resistance.

We’ll address both of these assertions in more detail shortly, but first, a bit of history.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt came into office and immediately created the Emergency Banking Act, which demanded that all those who held gold (other than personal jewelry) turn it in to approved banks. Holders were given less than a month to do this. The government then paid them $20.67 per ounce – the going rate at the time. Following confiscation, the government declared that the new value of gold was $35.00. In essence, they arbitrarily increased the value of their newly purchased asset by 69%. (This alone is reason enough to confiscate.)

Today, the US government is in much worse shape than it was in 1933, and it has much more to lose. The US dollar is the default currency of the world, but it’s on the ropes, which means the US economic power over the rest of the world is on the ropes.

I think that readers will agree that they will do anything to keep from losing this all-important power.

The US government has essentially run out of options. At some point, the fiat currencies of the First World will collapse, and some other form of payment will be necessary. Yes, the IMF is hoping to create a new default currency, but that, too, is to be a fiat currency. If any country were to produce a gold-backed currency in sufficient supply, that currency would likely become the desired currency worldwide. Fractional backing would be expected.

As most readers will know, the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and others see the opportunity and are building up their gold reserves quickly and substantially. If these countries were to agree to introduce a new gold-backed currency, there can be little doubt that they would succeed in changing the balance of world trade.

That said, the US government is watching these countries just as we are, and they are aware of the threat of gold to them.

The US government ostensibly has approximately 8,200 tonnes of gold in Fort Knox, although this may well be partially or completely missing. Additionally, it ostensibly holds a further 5,000 tonnes of gold in the cellar of the New York Federal Reserve building. Again, there is no certainty that it is there. In general, the authorities don’t seem to like independent audits.

In fact, there are rumors that the above vaults are nearly or completely empty and that the above quoted figures exist only on paper rather than in physical form. While there is no way to know this for sure, it’s not out of the question.

Either way, if the US and the EU could come up with a large volume of gold quickly, they could issue a gold-backed currency themselves. It’s a simple equation: The more gold they have = the more backed notes they can produce = the more power they continue to hold. By seizing upon the private supply of their citizens, they would increase their holdings substantially in short order.

Either that or they could just give up their dominance of world trade and power… What would you guess their choice would be?

It is entirely possible that the US government (and very likely the EU) has already made a decision to confiscate. They may have carefully laid out the plan and have set implementation to coincide with a specific gold price.

So how would this unfold? Let’s imagine a fairly extreme scenario and ask ourselves if it could be pulled off effectively:

• The evening news programs announce that the economic recovery is being hampered by wealthy private investors who, by hoarding gold, are skewing the value of the dollar and threatening the middle and poorer classes. The little man is being made to suffer while the rich get richer. A press campaign to equate gold ownership with greed ensues.

• The government announces the Second Emergency Banking Act, advising the public that “the first EBA was instituted by FDR to solve this same problem during the Great Depression. This act was instrumental in helping the little man ‘recover.'” (As the average man on the street doesn’t know his history nor how wrong this statement is, he’ll believe it. Besides, the announcement has a “feel-good” message, and that’s all that matters.)

• Possessors of gold, who make up a small minority of the population, would become pariahs. It won’t matter that the guy who owns two gold Maple Leafs is not exactly a greedy, rich man. No one will wish to be seen as resisting confiscation. Neither will they wish to go to prison for resisting, no matter how remote the possibility.

• The US pays for the gold in US dollars, which are rapidly headed south. Yes, the Fed will need to print more fiat dollars in order to pay them off, but this suits their purpose, as it inflates the dollar even more. Those who have turned in their gold will do whatever they can to unload the US dollars as quickly as possible and will need to find another investment at a time when there are very few trustworthy investments other than gold. The stock market would likely rise, showing the public how the gold confiscation program is “working.”

• One last scary possibility: The government demands that gold is turned in immediately and that settlement will occur following confiscation. After confiscation, it announces that, as there has been such a large number of cases of rich people ripping off the little man, processing them all could take months, possibly even a year or more. A further announcement states that some investors have made an unreasonable profit on the backs of the poor and that they should not be granted this profit. This profit must be returned to the people. (You can almost hear the cheers of the people.) Then it sets about making assessments. The bureaucrats find that most investors do not have formal, acceptable receipts for every coin in their possession. So if you paid $1,200 for a Krugerrand a couple of years ago, you get paid $1,200. If you bought it at $250 in 1999, you get paid $250. But if you have no receipt in an acceptable form, you get a “fair,” median payment, say, $500, regardless of when you bought it.

• Appeals: Each investor will be allowed up to one year to appeal the decision of the Treasury as to what is owed him. Of course, the investor knows that the dollar is sinking rapidly and that he would be wise to shut up and take what he is being offered.

Again, this hypothetical scenario is an extreme one.

The reader is left to consider just how likely or unlikely this scenario is and what that would mean to his wealth.

But bear this in mind: If the above scenario were to take place soon, the average citizen would have mixed feelings. They would be glad that the “evil rich” had been taken down a peg, but they would worry about the idea of the government taking things by force, because they might be next. It would therefore be in the government’s interests to implement confiscation only after the coming panic sets in – after the next crash in the market, after it becomes plain to the average citizen that this really is a depression and he really is in big trouble. Then he will be only too glad to see the “greedy rich” go down, and he won’t care about the details.

As terrible as the thought is, it seems unlikely to me that the government will not confiscate gold, as they have little to lose and so much to gain.

Those who own gold would prefer to think that this cannot happen, but they have quite a lot riding on that hope and precious little evidence to support it.

It is entirely possible that this scenario will not take place, just as it is possible that confiscation will not take place. The purpose of this article is to spark some serious discussion – both for and against the possibility.

Investors are, by their very nature, planners. It may take a community of investors to develop a legal plan to deal with the above eventuality. Time to get started.

The government can’t easily confiscate what’s outside its own borders, which is why it’s working night and day to make it as difficult as possible for you to protect your assets abroad. This sad reality means that you need to take action before it’s too late. Your first step? Learn how to start internationally diversifying your wealth – and your life. From investing in international markets and opening offshore bank accounts to setting up an offshore LLC or annuity.

*  *  *

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the trajectory of broke governments in need of more cash. There are still steps you can take to ensure you survive the turmoil with your money intact. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.

Authored by Doug Casey via Doug Casey's International Man,

International Man: Since 2020, coups have replaced pro-Western governments in Guinea, Burkina Faso, Mali, and now Niger with governments more aligned with Russia.

What is your take on what is going on here?

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: The average person doesn’t care about economics. But to the extent that he does, he only reads mainstream publications like The Economist and editorials in The New York Times.

In these publications, the average person will find so-called economists advocating upside-down and destructive concepts like negative interest rates, banning cash, debt-fueled consumption, government spending, and rampant money printing as the cures to economic ailments.

And if those methods don’t work—or inflict damage—the establishment economists’ response is to simply call for more money printing, more debt, and even lower interest rates.

What’s your take on conventional economic thinking and methods?

Doug Casey: Frankly, most “economists” today are only political apologists masquerading as economists.

An economist is somebody that describes the way the world works—how people go about producing, consuming, buying, selling, and living their lives. That’s not, however, what most of today’s PhD economists do. Instead, they prescribe the way they would like the world to work and tailor theories to help politicians demonstrate the virtue and necessity of their quest for more power.

As a result, legitimate economics barely exists today. What passes for economics has a very bad reputation, and it’s well deserved. Economics has become degraded. It’s not quite a laughingstock like gender studies, but it’s on a level with political science—which isn’t a science at all.

Every individual has vastly differing likes and dislikes and wants and needs. But these so-called economists like to treat people as if they were standardized atoms. They think they can manipulate people as if they were chemicals and treat the economy as something they can heat up or cool down. And they’re the ones who decide what the masses need.

Economics has become an excuse for central planning, and economists have become social engineers.

Economics is taught in colleges as if it were a subdivision of mathematics. It’s not. It has only a limited amount to do with mathematics. Rather, it’s a division of philosophy. It’s a moral study that looks at how people relate to one another in the material world.

Economics has been turned into the handmaiden of government in order to give a scientistic justification for things that the government—which naturally seeks more power for itself—wants to do.

In fact, every person should be his own economist. That’s because you owe it to yourself to understand the way the world works and to understand human action, to use Mises’ phrase.

International Man: Mainstream economists are obsessed with complicated models and charts as they try to maximize GDP.

By contrast, free-market Austrian economics is not focused on how to centrally plan the economy but rather on human action in the face of scarcity.

Austrians aren’t concerned with complicated models because they believe it is impossible to quantify the actions and preferences of billions of individuals.

Which do you think is more useful and why?

Doug Casey: Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations at about the time of the American Revolution and really founded the study of economics. But the most influential economist of all time is Karl Marx. His giant three-volume work called Das Kapital includes some interesting observations. But Marx’s views lent themselves to the creation of totalitarian societies, like the Soviet Union, East Germany, and many others.

One of his most interesting observations is the breakdown of all goods into either “means of production” or “consumer goods,” which is quite accurate. The problem lies in who Marx thinks ought to own them.

He thinks the ideal system is communism, where the collective owns both the means of production and consumer goods. The means of production are things like factories, farms, and mines: things that create new wealth. Consumer goods are things like houses, cars, or clothing. There has never been a real communist society. North Korea, or China during the Cultural Revolution, probably came the closest.

Marx posited socialism as a way station to pure communism. Socialism is a system where the State owns the means of production, but private goods are still owned by individuals. It’s theoretically possible to have your own house or car in a socialist country.

Although many countries call themselves socialist today, that’s a misnomer. The terms “communist,” “socialist,” “fascist,” and “capitalist” are almost always misused, undefined, or misdefined in today’s parlance. There really aren’t any socialist countries left in the world. Every country that tried socialism failed, and the means of production wound up being privatized. Why? Because everywhere—including Russia and China—people found that the State runs wealth into the ground. Socialism died because, to use a popular word, it was unsustainable.

The public likes the ideal of socialism, however—mainly free stuff. That’s understandable. For instance, they’ve heard Scandinavia is a socialist utopia. In fact, it’s neither a utopia nor socialist—its industries are all privately owned. The confusion comes from the fact it’s a welfare state; that’s what people really want. Things look free but are at the cost of huge taxes.

There are no real capitalist countries in the world. Capitalism is a system where economic matters are regulated by the market, not by government fiat. That statement deserves further explanation, but this isn’t the place. Let me just say that practically every country in the world today follows the fascist model that Benito Mussolini laid out—where although both the means of production and consumer goods are privately owned, everything is controlled by the State. As a system, it makes a lot more sense than either communism or socialism but not nearly as much as capitalism. Because it allows private ownership, it’s often confused and conflated with capitalism.

International Man: You have previously called mainstream economists “modern-day soothsayers.”

You’ve said they’re “witch doctors who have convinced everyone they’re neurosurgeons.”

Can you elaborate?

Doug Casey: What passes for economics today isn’t science; it’s more like a religion, where dogma is handed down from on high. Economists write abstruse papers that are used as reasons for the government to “step in” and “do more.” Economists have actually become something of a secular priesthood who interpret the doctrines of various prophets. The dominant prophet for the last century has been JM Keynes.

Mixing religion with government is always dangerous. Masses of people usually have to be sacrificed to make somebody’s idea of magic happen.

International Man: It seems establishment economists are nothing more than overpaid government apologists and social engineers.

They use complex but irrelevant mathematical models to help politicians show their necessity to society. They help politicians grab more power, which only helps the government grow.

It brings to mind Frédéric Bastiat, the great French free-market economist, who once said:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

What’s your take?

Doug Casey: An example of this is the Federal Reserve. It started out as not much more than a formalized clearinghouse for banks to help them process transactions and organize the papering over of temporary bouts of illiquidity.

It didn’t look overly dangerous to start with, but it’s morphed into the most dangerous and powerful part of the US government.

Tax revenue now only constitutes about half of what the US government spends. The rest is basically printed money facilitated by the Fed. In essence, US government bonds are sold to the Fed, which then deposits dollars in the US government’s accounts at commercial banks. The Fed is theoretically independent of the US government, but at this point, they’re joined together like Siamese twins.

International Man: How can the average person navigate the situation to get an accurate understanding of what is truly happening in the economy?

Doug Casey: You have to educate yourself. And by that, I don’t mean you should misallocate four years of time and a couple hundred thousand dollars attending a college to be indoctrinated. Take some individual responsibility.

Educating yourself amounts to reading and then applying critical thinking to what you read. Which means asking questions and insisting on logical explanations. Where to start? In my opinion, the best-done single book that you can read about economics is Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. It’s only about 150 pages, and it’s a gem. Everybody should read it.

After that, it’s just a question of how interested you are and how deep you want to go. Anything by Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, or Walter Block is on the list. They’re all sound, clear, and cogent writers. I think you’ll find stuff by Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, or Joseph Stiglitz unhelpful in understanding how the world works. They’re only celebrities. I find Ludwig von Mises too dense. It’s as if a German academic—which he was, of course—was writing for other academics. His thoughts are great, but the presentation is hard to absorb. Start with Mises Made Easier by Percy Greaves.

*  *  *

The months and years ahead will be politically, economically, and socially volatile. What you do to prepare could mean the difference between suffering crippling losses and coming out ahead. That’s precisely why, legendary investor and NY Times best-selling author Doug Casey just released this urgent report on how to survive and thrive. Click here to download the PDF now.

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

We’ve all heard nonsense about cows presenting a danger to the continuance of life on earth – that methane gas from cow flatulence will bring on climate change faster than John Kerry’s jet.

Any thinking person (a sub-species of Homo sapiens that’s in decline but not yet endangered) would agree that the notion that an animal that’s existed in harmony with nature for over two million years could destroy the earth within fourteen years if they’re not exterminated is truly absurd.

And yet those whose ability to reason is on the decline are inclined to believe the claim. Presumably, these individuals are the same ones beginning to believe that men can have babies and that an individual can become something he or she is not simply by “identifying” as such.

But those of us who see the absurdity in such clearly nonsensical beliefs are disinclined to laugh as we observe that these concepts are being disseminated by globalist governments through a compliant media… and, worse, are being accepted by more than a few people.

As a case in point, recently, a publication – Natural News – did a piece entitled, “13 Nations agree to engineer global FAMINE by destroying agriculture, saying that producing food is BAD for the planet.”

In that article, they describe a conference led by US Climate Czar John Kerry, in which representatives from thirteen countries are stated to have committed to a diminished cow population worldwide to combat climate change.

Well, that conference did take place, and a topic of discussion was methane produced by cows, and thirteen attendees did agree that measures of some sort were needed.

But it is not the case that thirteen countries have enacted legislation to eliminate cows.

We might take a step back here and examine what actually occurred. In so doing, we may not only learn whether or not red meat will soon be eliminated globally; we might also gain some insight into how globalist governments seek to achieve their ends.

In most countries, the role of Minister for the Environment is a lowly ministerial position, given to a loyal party member as a token.

Most Ministers of the Environment pontificate a fair bit but rarely implement significant change. So, let’s follow the thread of what has taken place.

• John Kerry contacts the Environmental Ministers in a host of “lesser” countries around the world on the vague premise of “making a difference.” They’re pleased to take part, as Kerry gives them higher visibility and legitimizes their otherwise rather pointless jobs.

• A conference is held at a four-star hotel somewhere for a few days. Everybody listens to the speakers wringing their hands over the dangers of climate change, and each minister tries to get their photos taken with John Kerry.

• There’s very little in the text of the keynote presentation by Kerry – mostly vague comments about the dangers of methane and the need for each country to commit to making a difference.

• At the end of the conference, the attendees are proud to sign a document that’s devoid of detail but says that they’re all in agreement in hoping to make a difference.

• A press release is issued, showing all the ministers together, stating that methane is dangerous and that all the countries are in agreement regarding the concept of a worldwide methane control policy.

• The message received by the public is that all the experts agree on whatever they’re saying, although what they’re saying is still quite unclear.

• A publication such as Natural News publishes an article with a suitably alarming title.

• The perceived overstatement by Natural News is regarded as a provocation by controlled information sources such as Wikipedia to alert the public. Interestingly, whenever a publication, group, or individual is discredited by Wikipedia, they always do so in the very first line of their description, i.e.,

• “Natural News is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience, disinformation, and far-right extremism.”

That’s essentially the process that’s now consistently being utilized by globalists.

Wikipedia now divides all publications, pundits, and others as either truth tellers or far-right conspiracy advocates. The real issue here isn’t farting cows any more than it’s whether men can have babies. These are mere exercises.

So, if we take a step back and consider an overview of what this all means – why it’s so prevalent and why the process is being so consistently utilized – we might be conclude the following:

The issues are absurdly extreme for a reason. The objective is not the achievement of the issues themselves. It is the alteration of the psyche of the populace. 

Once the public has spent several years having their heads divided between “far-right extremism” and what’s approved by the Ministry of Truth, enough people will have been converted into non-thinking proles that a bill can be put forward with the broad and intentionally non-specific objective to outlaw far-right extremism in all its forms.

In order to assure the passage of the bill, a significant majority of people will have to have already reached the stage in their new thought process that they feel that the law is not only justified but essential. Those people who can still think will be expected to comply.

The goal is not the elimination of cows; it’s the elimination of thinking and dissent. If we keep the above in mind as a process rather than an intended outcome, we have a greater ability to focus on the critical issue.

To be sure, there are those entities that would like to eliminate red meat and feed people insects as a replacement. But that’s not the central issue here.

The core objective is nothing less than the elimination of individual thought and dissent. It’s essential in the creation of a fully collectivist state, and it’s at the very heart of the overall globalist objective.

*  *  *

Disturbing economic, political, and social trends are already in motion and now accelerating at breathtaking speed. The risks that lie ahead are too big and dangerous to ignore. That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive an economic collapse. It will help you understand what is unfolding right before our eyes and what you should do so you don’t get caught in the crosshairs. Click here to download the PDF now.

Authored by Tom Mitchellhill via CoinTelegraph.com,

United States senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, have claimed that crypto tax evaders are siphoning off billions from the government...

A number of United States lawmakers have urged the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury to speed up the closure of tax loopholes being exploited by “crypto tax evaders.”

In an Aug. 1 letter, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Bob Casey and Richard Blumenthal warned the top officials of both agencies that they must swiftly act on new tax regulations.

The senators claim there is a “$50 billion crypto tax gap,” and the IRS and Treasury risk missing out on roughly $1.5 billion in tax revenue for the 2024 financial year if a tax policy update is delayed.

“Given the chance, tax evaders and the crypto intermediaries willing to aid them will continue to game the system, exploit loopholes, and siphon off billions of dollars a year from the U.S. government. You must not give them that chance.”

The senators are referring to new tax laws outlined in the Senate’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed in August 2021. The bill aimed to increase the tax reporting requirements for businesses acting as crypto brokers.

“Nearly two years have passed since the law was enacted, and the implementation deadline is less than six months away — but Treasury has yet to publish proposed rules,” the letter reads.

Letter to the Treasury and the IRS urging swifter crypto tax policy. Source: Elizabeth Warren

While the bill has been signed into law the Treasury and the IRS are yet to release their new tax rules. The agencies have until Dec. 31 to publish and implement the rules, but the lawmakers are requesting they be put in place much sooner.

Elizabeth Warren has been an outspoken critic of the cryptocurrency industry in the U.S., going as far as forming an “anti-crypto army” as the centerpiece of her Senate re-election campaign.

Elizabeth Warren’s anti-crypto army campaign. Source: Twitter

While Sanders has been more publicly quiet on crypto compared to his Democratic counterparts, he has co-signed a number of letters headed by Warren seeking to impose tighter restrictions on the space.

A recent poll commissioned by Grayscale Investments found that 59% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans consider crypto to be the future of finance, suggesting that Warren’s stance may not prove to be a vote-winner among the majority of the population.