Artificial intelligence is one of those topics that’s just spooky and sci-fi enough to make for a compelling television segment. They love it on the morning shows.
But at the same time, A.I. is complex enough that it’s easy to misrepresent. It sounds like something that could be revolutionary, even dangerous to humanity. But is it? If it is, what should we do about it?
Those questions are significant enough that we wanted to find someone who could provide a definitive answer. Elon Musk seemed like the right person. Musk has been thinking about AI and worrying about it for most of his life. Nearly a decade ago, he helped found a nonprofit research project called OpenAI, and the point was in the name. If we’re going to have artificial intelligence and apparently we are, it ought to be open, open to the world. That would help ensure that it’s used for good and not evil. That was the idea.
But as the years passed and Musk found himself preoccupied building a couple of enormous companies, SpaceX and Tesla, OpenAI got away from him.
As of tonight, Open A.I. is no longer open. It’s not a nonprofit research project dedicated to using artificial intelligence to serve humanity. It is instead a commercial enterprise backed by Microsoft and controlled to some extent by the Democratic Party.
Elon Musk thinks that’s a problem. In fact, he believes it’s a threat to human civilization, tantamount to, maybe even more terrifying than thermonuclear weapons. The conversation you’re about to see took place recently in a hotel room in Los Angeles. We think it’s important enough that we’re going to play the entire thing for you over the course of tonight and tomorrow.
The clandestine service is quietly seeking to gut the JFK Records Act
The website of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), where all files in the JFK Collection are housed, now features links to official documentation on a new process governing disclosure of records related to the JFK assassination that is not written into law and not approved by Congress.
By publishing these materials on behalf of executive branch agencies still in control of such files, the National Archives is helping the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency (NSA) and others to evade their legal obligations under the JFK Records Act, passed unanimously by Congress in 1992.
The Act already sets the conditions for disclosure of JFK files. The CIA’s ill-named “Transparency Plan” connives to replace the will of Congress with the priorities of the secret intelligence agencies. And the National Archives is helping them do it.
Having blown the statutory deadline written into the JFK Records Act four times in six years, the CIA and other federal agencies are now seeking to eliminate the deadline altogether. Here’s how the bureaucratic sleight of hand works.
Have you ever wondered who owns the most gold privately? The gold industry is thriving, as this yellow metal is highly coveted and a safe haven investment that usually appreciates over the long term. However, there’s only a finite supply of gold in the world. So, who are the individuals and families that own the most holdings of gold in the world? Below, we’ll tell you about the most prominent gold investors with privately owned reserves, notable advocates for gold IRAs, and how private gold ownership affects gold market prices.
Private Owners
John Paulson John Paulson is an American hedge fund manager and billionaire famous for having one of the world’s biggest privately owned gold reserves. He’s also well known for predicting the 2007 mortgage financial crisis and has made headlines for his mammoth-sized gold holdings through his firm, Paulson & Co. As the central banks start to buy more gold in response to the devaluation of fiat currencies, Paulson has been a vocal advocate for investing in physical gold bullion.
Ray Dalio Ray Dalio is another of the most famous gold buyers and owns one of the largest private gold reserves in the world. He’s the founder and co-chief investment officer of Bridgewater Associates, which manages $150 billion in assets. In the second quarter of 2020, Bridgewater Associates invested $400 million in gold holdings, including exchange-traded funds with the SPDR Gold Trust and the iShares Gold Trust.
Indian Families Indian households have some of the largest gold reserves in the world. Most of these are in the form of gold jewelry, which is primarily for weddings and Diwali festivals. Indian families (not including what the banking system owns) have roughly 25,000–27,000 tons of gold. The most exciting fact is that a significant portion of these gold reserves is held by the rich and throughout the caste system.
Stanley Druckenmiller Stanley Druckenmiller is a legend in the investing world. Like John Paulson, he predicted in 2005 that the Federal Reserve would trigger a housing crisis and economic collapse. In 2015, he had more than $292 million in exposure to the SPDR Gold Trust.
Eric Sprott Another of the world’s most prominent investors in gold is Eric Sprott. He’s a Canadian who has invested vast amounts of money in precious metals, including gold mining and exploration companies like Labrador Gold, Benchmark Metals, Ethos Gold, and New Age Metals.
The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia The royal family of Saudi Arabia is well known for being unimaginably wealthy and having some of the largest gold reserves in the world. They’re lavish spenders, with a reported net worth of approximately $1.4 trillion.
How Much Gold Is There in the World?
The World Gold Council reports an estimated 208,874 metric tons of gold mined worldwide. Even knowing that, it’s impossible to estimate how much gold in the world remains. While there is plenty, much of this physical gold is too deep to mine. Experts estimate that at a rate of 3,000 metric tons per year, the world’s currently accessible gold will have all been mined in less than 18 years unless new mines are discovered.
Some of the Most Notable Advocates for the Gold IRA
Peter Schiff Peter Schiff successfully advocates the precious metals industry and gold IRAs (individual retirement accounts). He founded SchiffGold and still serves as honorary chairman since he sold the company in 2016 to Goldmoney. He considers precious metals, like gold IRAs, safe haven investments to hedge against inflation and the rapid weakening of our country’s currency.
James Rickards James Rickards is another advocate for investing in gold and precious metal IRAs. He is an investor, advisor, and lawyer who frequently lectures on why Americans should buy gold and allocate about 10 percent of their wealth portfolio to precious metal investments. He was also the primary negotiator for the Federal Reserve when it rescued Long-Term Capital Management.
Robert Kiyosaki Robert Kiyosaki is an American investor and the founder of the Rich Dad Company. He has long been a proponent of investing in physical gold and gold IRAs. He’s a financial advisor who aims to help people achieve financial independence through wise investing.
Laith Alsarraf Another of the most prominent gold investors and advocates for precious metals and gold IRAs is Laith Alsarraf, who founded Birch Gold Group. He believes in empowering people and financial strength through knowledge, and is one of the most well-respected businessmen in the IRA industry.
Which Countries and National Governments Have the Largest Gold Reserves?
Which countries can claim to have all the gold? The U.S. Federal Reserve has the highest gold reserves in the world, thanks to its switch from the gold standard a few decades ago, when citizens could redeem national currency for gold. Our country’s gold reserves are around 8,133.5 metric tons. Furthermore, 75 percent of its foreign reserves are in gold as well. However, other countries also have significant gold reserves in their possession.
Second on the list is Germany, with 3,359 metric tons of gold. German investors are also rapidly investing in more gold than in previous years and are becoming some of the largest global investors in gold.
In the third position is Italy, with 2,452 metric tons. Other countries with large gold reserves include China, France, and Russia. Interestingly enough, the United States is considering freezing Russian gold reserves over the war in Ukraine. The World Bank reports that the International Monetary Fund also has some of the largest national assets, with official gold holdings at around 90.5 million ounces. The European Central Bank has also been buying more gold reserves, with about €26 billion invested in 2021.
Why Do Some Individuals Choose to Hold Gold Privately?
Is there a benefit to buying private gold instead of government-backed bullion? While the primary advantage of government bullion is its security and stability, it’s also far more expensive, mainly if it’s collectible. Unfortunately, that premium comes in the form of extra fees.
With private gold, investors can avoid those extra costs and use the money to purchase more bullion instead. Government bullion has a guarantee, so investors know their gold’s precise weight and purity, unlike private purchases. However, as long as you take the time to verify the seller and the quality of your gold before you purchase it, you can enjoy the benefits of private gold ownership while avoiding the extra expense of collector’s fees.
How Does Private Gold Ownership Affect Gold Prices?
If someone has a large privately owned gold reserve, does that affect the price of gold? Of course, as only a finite amount of gold is left in the world, the price will increase once supplies begin to dwindle, according to the law of supply and demand. While private ownership can affect gold prices if individuals buy enough gold to affect the supply, it’s not the only factor that impacts prices.
The availability of gold imports also affects prices, as developing countries that mine the metal often have supply-chain issues due to political reasons like civil war. A nation with a slightly weakened currency can also impact the export industry, increasing it by a large margin. In addition, factors like inflation, the central bank actions, and the mining industry also affect prices. Historically, when the stock market and paper assets decrease, the price of gold increases. Not all gold reserves in the central banks are legal, however. Illegally sourced gold has been a big problem and is another factor influencing spot prices.
This report brings together corrupt and criminal actions by the Democrat Party ignored by the GOP, the mainstream media, and law enforcement.
In 2020 millions were reportedly donated to BLM after George Floyd was killed. At the same time, 20+ police were killed and American cities suffered nearly $2 billion in record damages following the George Floyd riots.
The Gateway Pundit was the first to report that ActBlue was raising money using BLM as its front group. ActBlue is the Democrats’ funding apparatus. We know this from our early reporting and from the fact that BLM later admitted this. In 2022 Black Lives Matter announced in February 2022 that the organization was deactivating its fundraising pages on ActBlue. This was after the Washington Examinerexposed that BLM was still accepting donations on the Democratic platform despite claiming it had stopped amid questions about its finances.
The Daily Caller confirmed that ActBlue was using BLM to raise money. BLM is not a recognized non-profit organization and nonprofit organization (Thousand Currents) said it provides ‘fiduciary oversight, financial management, and other administrative services’ to BLM.
Candice Owen reported on the BLM – ActBlue relationship and was targeted by a bogus fact-checker. Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch jumped in and stated that their findings confirmed what TGP and Candice Owen reported:
Thousand Currents was allegedly a non-profit organization and Susan Rosenberg served on its Board. Susan Rosenberg was a member of the Weather Underground terrorist group, which included Obama friend Bill Ayers. President Bill Clinton gave her a pardon on his last day in office.
So in summary contributions to BLM were funneled through ActBlue, the major resource for Democrat donations, and then funneled to at least one organization run by a member of a domestic terrorist group.
In early 2020 FOX News reported that half of all donations to ActBlue in 2019 came from “untraceable, unemployed donors.”
A preliminary computer analysis by the Take Back Action Fund, obtained exclusively by Fox News, has found that nearly half of all 2019 donations to ActBlue were made by people claiming to be unemployed.
“After downloading hundreds of millions of [dollars in] donations to the Take Back Action Fund servers, we were shocked to see that almost half of the donations to ActBlue in 2019 claimed to be unemployed individuals,” he said. “The name of employers must be disclosed when making political donations, but more than 4.7 million donations came from people who claimed they did not have an employer. Those 4.7 million donations totaled $346 million ActBlue raised and sent to liberal causes.”
Action Fund’s President John Pudner had this to say regarding the finding:
“It is hard to believe that at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate was less than 4 percent, that unemployed people had $346 million dollars to send to ActBlue for liberal causes,” Pudner said, adding that “4.7 million donations from people without a job … raised serious concerns.”
“When Take Back Our Republic first pointed out in 2015 that foreign interests could potentially use gift cards to flood money in through ActBlue’s unverified credit card system, more than 100 members of Congress stopped using the system and 31 Democrats joined 52 Republicans in trying to outlaw the practice,” said John Pudner, president of Take Back Action Fund.
“It took vendors only a few hours to change their setup to allow the banks to verify if donations were really from Americans,” Pudner added. “Unfortunately, as things turned harshly partisan after Trump’s election, ActBlue doubled down and moved more and more candidates onto an unverified system at a time when intelligence officials are warning that foreign interests want to impact who wins our elections. TBAF asks ActBlue to join the hundreds who have stopped using this system.”
Per a review of ActBlue Texas disbursements via the website TransparencyUSA.org, there are hundreds of individuals being paid by ActBlue Texas for similar small amounts (e.g. $300 or $250) who are not candidates running for office. In total, ActBlue Texas has paid out $9.6 million in disbursements. We have no idea who most these people are.
Could ActBlue Texas be paying rioters for their attempts to destroy American cities?
Donors gave a huge number of donations, in very small amounts, to Democrat candidates around the country. Their occupations were recorded as unemployed. We noted this after the 2022 Election in Georgia where Senate candidate Raphael Warnock was given $24 million in over 358,000 donations.
Earlier this week, James O’Keefe and O’Keefe Media Group published a video of his visits to the homes of a small sample of these campaign finance mules in Maryland. To his surprise, many of these donors had no idea they were making so many donations for Democrat candidates, adding up to thousands of dollars in 2022 political donations.
The donors all appeared to be over 70 years old which is why they were classified as unemployed. It also appears as if their identities may have been stolen and used to launder money to Democrat candidates.
Evidence shows that half of Democrat donations are coming from small donations attributed to unemployed elderly voters whose identity may have been stolen. Who is really donating to the Democrats?
Why has the Republican Party ignored this?
Democrats are obviously partaking in a donations fraud scheme. This needs further investigation.
It’s been rightly said that “he who holds the gold makes the rules.”
After World War 2, the US had the largest gold reserves in the world, by far. Along with winning the war, this let the US reconstruct the global monetary system around the dollar.
The new system, created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, tied the currencies of virtually every country in the world to the US dollar through a fixed exchange rate. It also tied the US dollar to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce.
The dollar was said to be “as good as gold.”
The Bretton Woods system made the US dollar the world’s premier reserve currency. It compelled other countries to store dollars for international trade or to exchange them with the US government for gold at the promised price.
However, it was doomed to fail.
Runaway spending on warfare and welfare caused the US government to print more dollars than it could back with gold at the promised price.
By 1967, the number of dollars circulating had drastically increased relative to the amount of gold backing them. This encouraged foreign countries to exchange their dollars for gold, draining the US gold supply at an alarming rate and collapsing the London Gold Pool. At this point, it was clear this system was breaking down.
On Sunday night, August 15, 1971, President Nixon interrupted the scheduled TV programs and made a surprise announcement to the nation—and the world. He announced the unilateral end of the Bretton Woods system and severed the dollar’s last tie to gold.
The end of the dollar’s gold backing had profound geopolitical consequences.
Most critically, it eliminated the main reason foreign countries stored large amounts of US dollars and used the US dollar for international trade. As a result, oil-producing countries began to demand payment in gold instead of rapidly depreciating dollars.
It was clear the US would have to create a new monetary system to stabilize the dollar. So it concocted a new scheme… and chose Saudi Arabia as its accomplice. This agreement came to be known as the “petrodollar system.”
The US handpicked Saudi Arabia because of its vast petroleum reserves and dominant position in the global oil market.
In essence, the petrodollar system was an agreement that the US would guarantee the House of Saud’s survival. In exchange, Saudi Arabia would do three things.
First, it would use its dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions would only happen in US dollars.
Second, it would recycle hundreds of billions of US dollars from annual oil revenue into US Treasuries. This lets the US issue more debt and finance previously unimaginable budget deficits.
Third, it would guarantee the price of oil within limits acceptable to the US and prevent another oil embargo.
The petrodollar system gave foreign countries another compelling reason to hold and use the dollar. And it preserved the dollar’s unique status as the world’s top reserve currency.
But… why oil?
Oil is the largest and most strategic commodity market in the world.
As you can see in the chart below, it dwarfs all other major commodity markets combined. The annual production value of the oil market is ten times bigger than the gold market, for example.
Every country needs oil. And if foreign countries need US dollars to buy oil, they have a compelling reason to hold US dollars even if they are not backed by a promise to redeem them in gold.
Think about it… If France wants to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, it must purchase US dollars on the foreign exchange market to pay for the oil first.
This creates a huge artificial market for US dollars and differentiates the US dollar from a purely local currency, like the Mexican peso.
The dollar is just a middleman. It’s used in countless transactions, amounting to trillions of dollars that have nothing to do with US products or services.
Since the oil market is enormous, it acts as a benchmark for international trade. If foreign countries are already using dollars for oil, it’s easier to use the dollar for other international trade.
In addition to nearly all oil sales, the US dollar is used for about 80% of all international transactions.
Ultimately, the petrodollar boosts the US dollar’s purchasing power by enticing foreigners to soak up dollars.
The petrodollar system has helped create a deeper, more liquid market for the dollar and US Treasuries. It has also helped the US keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be, allowing the US government to finance enormous deficits it otherwise would be unable to.
Multi-trillion deficits would otherwise be impossible without destroying the currency through money printing.
It’s hard to overstate how much the petrodollar system benefits the US. It’s the bedrock of the US financial system and has underpinned the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency since the 1970s.
That’s why the US government protects it so fiercely. It needs the system to survive.
World leaders who have challenged the petrodollar have ended up dead.
Take Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, for example. Each led a large oil-producing country—Iraq and Libya, respectively. And both tried to sell their oil for something other than US dollars before US military interventions led to their deaths.
Of course, there were other reasons the US toppled Saddam and Gaddafi. But protecting the petrodollar was a serious consideration, at the very least.
When countries like Iraq and Libya challenge the petrodollar system, it’s one thing. The US military can dispatch them with ease.
However, it’s a whole other dynamic when China (and Russia) undermine the petrodollar system… which is happening in a big way right now.
China and Russia are the only countries with sophisticated enough nuclear arsenals to go toe-to-toe with the US up to the top of the military escalation ladder.
In other words, the US military can’t attack Russia and China with impunity because they can match each move up to all-out nuclear war—the very top of the military escalation ladder.
For this reason, the US is deterred from entering a direct military conflict with China and Russia—even though they are about to strike a fatal blow to the petrodollar system.
US Sanctions Accelerate Demise of Petrodollar
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US government launched its most aggressive sanctions campaign ever.
Exceeding even Iran and North Korea, Russia is now the most sanctioned nation in the world.
“This is financial nuclear war and the largest sanctions event in history,” said a former US Treasury Department official.
He said, “Russia went from being part of the global economy to the single largest target of global sanctions and a financial pariah in less than two weeks.”
As part of this, the US government seized the US dollar reserves of the Russian central bank—the accumulated savings of the nation. (Washington did the same to Afghanistan’s dollar reserves after the Taliban took Kabul.)
It was a stunning illustration of the dollar’s political risk. The US government can seize another sovereign country’s dollar reserves at the flip of a switch.
The Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “If Russian Currency Reserves Aren’t Really Money, the World Is in for a Shock,” noted:
“Sanctions have shown that currency reserves accumulated by central banks can be taken away. With China taking note, this may reshape geopolitics, economic management and even the international role of the U.S. dollar.”
The head of the Russian Parliament recently called the US dollar a “candy wrapper” but not the candy itself. In other words, the dollar has the outward appearance of money but is not real money.
It’s important to remember some simple facts.
#1: Russia is the world’s largest energy producer.
#2: China is the world’s largest energy importer.
#3: Russia is China’s largest oil supplier.
And now that the US has banned Russia from the dollar system, there is an urgent need for a credible system capable of handling hundreds of billions worth of oil sales outside the US dollar and financial system.
The Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) is that system. The maturation of China’s alternative to the petrodollar is a big reason why the massive amount of energy trade between Russia and China occurs in yuan, not US dollars.
Further, Washington has threatened to sanction China similarly for years.
These threats against China may be a bluff, but if the US government carried them out—as it recently did against Russia—it would be like dropping a financial nuclear bomb on Beijing. Without access to dollars, China would have previously struggled to import oil and engage in international trade. As a result, its economy would come to a grinding halt, an intolerable threat to the stability of the Chinese government.
China would rather not depend on an adversary like this. It’s one of the main reasons it created an alternative to the petrodollar system. The INE allows oil producers to sell their products for yuan (and gold indirectly) while bypassing the US dollar, sanctions, and financial system.
Other countries on Washington’s sanctions list are enthusiastically signing up.
According to Credit Suisse, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela own 40% of the proven oil reserves of OPEC+ members. These countries are under strict US sanctions, which makes accepting US dollars and transacting globally challenging. So it’s no surprise that these sanctioned oil producers are happy to accept yuan as payment and support the petroyuan system.
But it’s not just sanctioned oil producers that benefit from the petroyuan…
Think about it. Any oil-producing country has two choices:
Option #1 – The Petrodollar
The dismal financial situation of the US guarantees the dollar will lose significant purchasing power.
Plus, there’s enormous political risk. Oil producers are exposed to the whims of the US government, which can confiscate their money whenever it wants, as it recently did to Russia.
Option #2 – Shanghai International Energy Exchange
Here, an oil producer can participate in the world’s largest market and try to capture more market share.
It can also easily convert and repatriate its proceeds into physical gold, an international form of money with no political or counterparty risk.
From the perspective of an oil producer, the choice is a no-brainer.
Even though most people have not realized it yet, we are at the end of the petrodollar system and on the cusp of a new monetary era.
There’s an excellent chance more financial turmoil is coming soon.
There can be little doubt that we are at war, except it’s not quite like in the movies. This war is unlike any others about which we learned in school where two opposed forces meet in a battlefield and fight it out until one side prevails. That kind of war is happening in Ukraine, but that’s only a part of the conflict that’s engulfed nearly all the rest of the world. It manifests in different and seemingly unrelated ways, but it is part of the same conflict.
Some analysts like to use the phrase “hybrid” or “asymmetrical” to describe it, by which they mean that in addition to shooting, the conflict has information, cultural, economic and financial dimensions. But I think that the war is still bigger than that: it is global and total – perhaps it should be called total global war. The “Trans Day of Vengeance” planned in Washington DC, is only the latest and weirdest part of it.
The clash of two systems
In his address to the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos in May 2022 George Soros explained that we are witnessing a clash between two models of governance. This was only slightly misleading: models don’t wage war on one another; it is the stakeholders in these models that are fighting. Soros characterized the two opposing sides as “open societies,” vs. “closed societies,” where open societies are liberal democracies that respect human rights, and closed societies are autocracies.
But Soros’s “open” societies are in fact oligarchies concealed behind faux democratic facades. To believe Soros, we’d have to accept that the trillionaire oligarchs in charge of open societies are die-hard defenders of democracy and human rights, willing to shed blood and treasure in their defense.
This war is as old as fractional reserve banking
But the notion that the conflict is between “two governance models” is not new: it is as old as the oldest forms of fractional reserve banking. Abraham Lincoln‘s chief economic advisor Henry C. Carey characterized it a bit better than George Soros. In his 1851 work, “The Harmony of Interests.” Carey wrote as follows:
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits.
One looks to increasing the quantity of raw materials to be exported, and diminishing the inducements to imports of men, thus impoverishing both farmer and planter by throwing on them the burden of freight; while the other looks to increasing the import of men and diminishing the export of raw materials, thereby enriching both planter and farmer by relieving them from payment of freight.
One looks to giving the (products) of millions of acres of land and of the labour of millions of men for the (services) of hundreds of thousands of distant men; the other to bringing the distant men to consume on the land the products of the land, exchanging day’s labour for day’s labour.
One looks to compelling the farmers and planters of the Union to continue their contributions for the support of the fleets and the armies, the paupers, the nobles and the sovereigns of Europe; the other to enabling ourselves to apply the same means to the moral and intellectual improvement of the sovereigns of America.
One looks to the continuance of that freedom of trade which denies the principle of protection, yet doles it out as revenue duties; the other by extending the area of legitimate free trade by the establishment of perfect protection, followed by the annexation of individuals and communities, and ultimately by the abolition of customs-houses.
One looks to exporting men to occupy desert tracts, the sovereignty of which is obtained by aid of diplomacy or war; the other to increasing the value of an immense extent of vacant land by importing men by millions for their occupation.
One looks to the centralization of wealth and power in a great commercial city that shall rival the great cities of modern times which have been and are being supported by aid of contributions which have exhausted every nation subjected to them; the other to concentration, by aid of which a market shall be made upon the land for the products of the land, and the farmer and planter be enriched.
One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it.
One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level.
One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace.
One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”
Now, if you are like me, and perhaps you studied economics and history, you know about Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, but you probably never heard of Henry C. Carey. I am grateful to Cynthia Chung and Matthew Ehret for bringing Carey’s work to my attention through their invaluable research. If ever you read Carey’s biography, you might wonder why one of the most important economists of his age dropped out of the curriculum.
Well, the total global war is the reason. Namely, the proponents of the “open society” governance model would prefer it if you didn’t know about Henry Carey or about the American system which had turned the United States from a number of British Empire’s disjointed colonies into the world’s most prosperous and most powerful nation. In Lincoln’s days, the United States was known as a nation of readers, many of whom understood clearly what they were up against.
The rise of the United States in fact became such a threat to the British Empire that it orchestrated a civil war in order to break the Union into two smaller, weaker client states that could be set one against one another and kept weak and easily dominated. Empires do not suffer rivals and prefer that the earth be covered by uneducated and disorganized masses whose sole worth would be as a source of cheap, or preferably free labor used to extract their countries’ resource wealth and transfer it to “the nobles and sovereigns of Europe.” These would be the very stakeholders of George Soros’ open societies, who congregate in Davos and fantasize about turning the whole of humanity into a flock of “hackable animals” with no free will.
Even if the shooting war is raging in Ukraine, the United States remains the central battlefield in this total war. The people of the US are under a seemingly unrelated barrage of attacks that have escalated for several decades now and are almost too many to enumerate, but their effects include a sustained decline in living standards, progressive collapse of the nation’s infrastructure, loss of freedoms and permanent warfare. And yes, Americans are dying, only not exactly in trenches:
They already lost!
But the occult oligarchy behind the open societies has already lost their global war. They predicated their plans on achieving total domination of the whole world. The emergence of a multi-polar order entirely collapses their plans. How can you force everyone to rely on windmills and solar panels if your rivals are happily burning oil and gas and running their steel-producing furnaces? Without steel, you can’t build modern weapons. How can you coerce the “hackable animals” to subsist on insects if people in closed societies enjoy traditional foods? How do you force 7 or 8 billion people to take up your vaccines and carry vaccine passes if other nations opt for your rivals’ vaccines? That ship had sailed – it simply cannot be done.
Raising a new Iron Curtain
The only consolation prize available to the occult oligarchy now is to carve out a geopolitical block, break all ties with the closed societies and implement their plans within a new iron curtain. Then perhaps, the open societies could regroup and rebuild their military strength (not with solar panels) for another attempt at world domination in the future.
This new iron curtain would most likely encompass the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and parts of continental Europe. But the block’s viability will depend on whether it can also include the United States which remains an extremely tough nut to crack. The uncontrolled migrations, attack on states’ rights, and the all-out assault of the Bill of Rights, including the periodic mass shootings, are all occult oligarchy’s attempts to crack it. It is all part of the total global war.
Like Henry Carey, those who understood the nature of this conflict knew that the ultimate showdown was coming. In addressing the American people, Ernesto Che Guevara invoked the coming clash: “I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all – you live in the belly of the beast.” Che got many things wrong, but I believe he did get that part right.
Far and away the most common question I get from those who took one of the COVID-19 vaccines is: “how do I get this out of my body.” The mRNA and adenoviral DNA products were rolled out with no idea on how or when the body would ever breakdown the genetic code. The synthetic mRNA carried on lipid nanoparticles appears to be resistant to breakdown by human ribonucleases by design so the product would be long-lasting and produce the protein product of interest for a considerable time period. This would be an advantage for a normal human protein being replaced in a rare genetic deficiency state (e.g. alpha galactosidase in Fabry’s disease). However, it is a big problem when the protein is the pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 Spike. The adenoviral DNA (Janssen) should be broken down by deoxyribonuclease, however this has not be exhaustively studied.
This leaves dissolution of Spike protein as a therapeutic goal for the vaccine injured. With the respiratory infection, Spike is processed and activated by cellular proteases including transmembrane serine protein 2 (TMPRSS2), cathepsin, and furin. With vaccination, these systems may be avoided by systemic administration and production of Spike protein within cells. As a result, the pathogenesis of vaccine injury syndromes is believed to be driven by accumulation of Spike protein in cells, tissues, and organs.
Nattokinase is an enzyme is produced by fermenting soybeans with bacteria Bacillus subtilis var. natto and has been available as an oral supplement. It degrades fibrinogen, factor VII, cytokines, and factor VIII and has been studied for its cardiovascular benefits. Out of all the available therapies I have used in my practice and among all the proposed detoxification agents, I believe nattokinase and related peptides hold the greatest promise for patients at this time.
Tanikawa et al examined the effect of nattokinase on the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. In the first experiment they demonstrated that Spike was degraded in a time and dose dependent manner in a cell lysate preparation that could be analogous to a vaccine recipient. The second experiment demonstrated that nattokinase degraded the Spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 infected cells. This reproduced a similar study done by Oba and colleagues in 2021.
Tanikawa T, Kiba Y, Yu J, Hsu K, Chen S, Ishii A, Yokogawa T, Suzuki R, Inoue Y, Kitamura M. Degradative Effect of Nattokinase on Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2. Molecules. 2022 Aug 24;27(17):5405. doi: 10.3390/molecules27175405. PMID: 36080170; PMCID: PMC9458005.
Nattokinase is dosed in fibrinolytic units (FU) per gram and can vary according to purity. Kurosawa and colleagues have shown in humans that after a single oral dose of 2000 FU D-dimer concentrations at 6, and 8 hours, and blood fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products at 4 hours after administration elevated significantly (p < 0.05, respectively). Thus an empiric starting dose could be 2000 FU twice a day. Full pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have not been completed, but several years of market use as an over-the-counter supplement suggests nattokinase is safe with the main caveat being excessive bleeding and cautions with concurrent antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs.
Based on these findings, nattokinase and similar products such as serrapeptase should undergo well-funded, accelerated preclinical and clinical development programs. The issue at hand is the urgency of time, similar to that with SARS-CoV-2 infection and empiric early therapy. It will take up to 20 years to have a fully developed pharmaceutical profile to characterize the safety and efficacy of nattokinase in the treatment of vaccine injury and post-COVID syndromes. Large number of people are sick now and many believe empiric treatment is justified given sufficiently low risk of side effects and potentially high reward. My recommendation is to discuss this with your doctor or seek a specialist in holistic or naturopathic medicine who is experienced with the safety profile of nattokinase in a range of applications.
If you find “Courageous Discourse” enjoyable and useful to your endeavors, please subscribe as a paying or founder member to support our efforts in helping you engage in these discussions with family, friends, and your extended circles.
Source:Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Bill Maher in his latest installment of ‘Real Time’ absolutely nails the threat that ‘Woke revolutionaries’ pose to America.
“Finally, new rule,” Maher said. “If you’re part of today’s Woke revolution, you need to study the part of revolutions where they spin out of control. Because the revolutionaries get so drunk on their own purifying elixir, they imagine they can reinvent the very nature of human beings.”
“Communists thought selfishness could be cast out of human nature,” he continued. “Russian revolutionaries spoke of ‘the new Soviet man’ who wasn’t motivated by self-interest, but instead wanted to be part of a collective. No, it turns out he wanted to be on a yacht in a Gucci tracksuit holding a vodka and a prostitute not standing in line all day for a potato.”
“The problem with communism and with some very recent ideologies here at home is that they think you can change reality by screaming at it,” he went on. “That you can bend human nature by holding your breath. But that’s the difference between reality and your mommy.”
“Lincoln once said that you can repeal all past history, but you still cannot repeal human nature,” he added. “But he’s canceled now, so fuck him.”
“Yes. I asked Chat GPT: Are there any similarities between today’s woke revolution and Chairman Mao’s cultural revolution of the 1960s?” he asked. “And it wrote back: ‘How long do you have?’”
“Because, again, in China we saw how a revolutionary thought he could do a page one rewrite of humans,” Maher continued. “Mao ordered his citizens to throw off the ‘four olds’ — old thinking, old culture, old customs, and old habits. So, your whole life went in the garbage overnight, no biggie. And those who resisted were attacked by an army of ‘purifiers’ called the Red Guard who went around the country putting dunce caps on people. Yeah. Who didn’t take to being a new kind of mortal being,. A lot of pointing and shaming went on.”
“Oh, and about a million dead,” he added. “And the only way to survive was to plead insanity for the crime of being insufficiently radical. Then apologize and thank the state for the chance to see what a piece of shit you are. And of course, submit to reeducation or as we call it here in America, freshman orientation.”
“Listen to this story,” he went on. “There’s a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago named Jason Kilborn, whose crime was that on one of his exams, he used a hypothetical case or a black female worker sued her employer for race and discrimination alleging that managers had called her two slur words — the type of real world case these students might one day confront and knowing the extreme sensitivity of today’s students. He didn’t write the two taboo words on the test, just the first letter of each. He was teaching his students how to fight racism in the place where it matters most: the criminal justice system. But because he merely alluded to those words, again, in the service of a good cause, he was banned from campus, placed on indefinite leave and made to wear the ‘dunce cap.’
“No, not really the dunce cap part, but our American version of that — eight weeks of sensitivity training, weekly 90 minute sessions with a diversity trainer, and having to write five self-reflection papers,” he continued. “A grown ass man, a liberal law professor. If you can’t see the similarities between that and this, the person need needs reeducation is you.”
“Yes, we, we do have our own Red Guard here, but they do their rampaging on Twitter,” he said. “Here’s a cute example from a couple of years ago, the banjo player from Mumford and Sons tweeted that he liked a book, a book that apparently had not been approved by the revolution. So of course he had to delete the tweet, then take time away from the band. Oh my God, you mean this could have affected Mumford and Sons?”
“And then, the cringing apology,” Maher said. “‘I have come to better understand the pain caused by the book I endorsed.’ Pain? From a book? Unless he hit the drummer over the head with it…”
“What happened to, ‘I can read whatever the fuck I want’?” Maher said. “Yeah, don’t worry, I’m a musician. It won’t happen again.”
“There was once a very different musician named John Lennon who wrote a song called Revolution and people who didn’t really listen to it thought it was a ‘rah rah’ call for revolution,” he continued. “No, it was the opposite. The lyrics are, ‘You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world, but if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anybody anyhow.’ There’s a guy who understood how good intentions can turn into the insane arrogance of thinking, ‘your revolution is so fucking awesome and your generation is so mind bendingly improved that you have bequeathed the world with a new kind of human. You’re welcome.”
“With communists, that human was no longer selfish,” he said. “In America today, that human is no longer born male or female. And obesity is not something that affects health. You can be healthy at any size. Really. We voted on it.”
“A formerly serious magazine last year, published with a straight face, an article called ‘Separating Sports by Sex Doesn’t Make Sense.’ Yes, it does,” Marher said. “Because, again, we haven’t reinvented Homo Sapien since Crystal Pepsi came out.”
“I’ve spent three decades on TV mocking Republicans who said climate change was just a theory and now I gotta deal with people who say, you know what else is just a theory biology,” he quipped.
Well, Climate Change isn’t a theory, but Manmade Climate Change is one. That’s because Climate Changes and has since the beginning of the earth. It’s supreme arrogance to believe that mankind is about to ‘end the world’ with modern civilization unless it turns over power to the same Woke revolutionaries that Maher decries.
After all, one percent of the humans are dying today from natural disasters than they did a hundred years ago. 99.9% of humanity survived Covid, but that was another pretext for Woke revolutionaries to seize more power. Communism comes in many guises and its cult followers seize on any pretext to institute their totalitarian rule.
Maher’s monologue is an excellent reminder of that, even if he doesn’t hammer all the particulars. It needs to be seen by every American to really grasp what they are now up against.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
During a Tuesday night segment on NBC Nightly News, justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian had an exclusive sitdown interview with the former federal prosecutor and chief investigator of the January 6 Committee, Tim Heaphy who told Dilanian that the federal government could’ve prevented the January 6 riot at the Capitol if they took the intelligence they received seriously and acted on the threats that were received about the rioters’ intentions that day.
What was just as out of the ordinary for NBC was the admission that among the more than 800 pages in the January 6 Committee’s report, none of it included their findings on the failure of law enforcement to prevent the riots. Anchor Lester Holt made as much clear in the opening moments of the segment before tossing to Dilanian:
“The January 6 Committee’s final report was more than 800 pages, but some material did not make the cut, including much of its findings on the failures of federal law enforcement leading up to the attack,” Holt admitted.
“The images of the attack on the capitol stunned America and the world. And tonight, in an exclusive interview, the chief investigator of the January 6 Committee says the government could have prevented it,” Dilanian reported before turning to Heaphy to ask “had law enforcement agencies acted on the available intelligence, do you believe the attack on the capitol could have been could have been successfully repelled?”
Heaphy responded: “I think it would have been a lot different had law enforcement taken a more assertive protective posture. The Intel in advance was pretty specific, and it was enough in our view for law enforcement to have done a better job operationalizing a secure perimeter.”
“Law enforcement had a very direct role in contributing to surely the failures—the security failures that led to the violence,” Heaphy added.
Dilanian revealed how “people familiar with the committee’s work tell NBC News members downplayed that finding because they wanted to keep the focus on former President Trump. Committee members dispute that.”
That admission was followed by Dilanian reporting how “Heaphy says the committee found the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies did not act on the intelligence they had, including this online threat forwarded to capitol police January 5, calling for thousands to go to Washington and help storm the capitol.”
Yet, according to Dilanian, “the FBI said it sent all the intelligence it had to the capitol police. DHS and capitol police say they’ve taken steps to make sure threat intelligence is better analyzed and shared.”
Now they tell us that law enforcement didn’t take the intelligence seriously or failed to act on it. Well over a month after the January 6 Committee report was released, these key findings were conveniently left out of the over 800-page report. Instead, the hyper-partisan committee was more focused on what former President Donald Trump says was a political witch hunt against him.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
The bloc could help end the conflict, at any time, by addressing the issues around its plans for further expansion.
The Western public, like others, are justly appalled by the human suffering and the horrors of the Ukrainian war. Empathy is one of the great virtues of humanity, which in this instance translates into the demand for helping Ukrainians. Yet, propaganda commonly weaponizes the best in human nature, such as compassion, to bring out the worst. As sympathy and the desire to assist the displaced are used to mobilize public support for confrontation and war with Russia, it is necessary to ask if the Western public and Ukrainians are being manipulated to support a proxy war.
Is NATO helping Ukraine to fight Russia or is NATO using Ukraine to fight Russia?
The organization as a passive actor?
The US-led military bloc commonly depicts itself as an innocent third party that merely responds to the overwhelming desire of the Ukrainian people to join its ranks. Yet, for years NATO has attempted to absorb a reluctant Ukraine into its orbit. A NATO publication from 2011 acknowledged that “The greatest challenge for Ukrainian-NATO relations lies in the perception of NATO among the Ukrainian people. NATO membership is not widely supported in the country, with some polls suggesting that popular support for it at is less than 20%”.
In 2014, this problem was resolved by supporting what Statfor’s George Friedman labelled “the most blatant coup in history” as there were no efforts to conceal Western meddling. Regime change was justified as helping Ukrainians with their “democratic revolution”. Yet, it involved the unconstitutional removal of the elected government as a result of an uprising that even the BBC acknowledged did not have majority support amongst the general public. The authorities elected by the Ukrainian people were replaced by individuals handpicked by Washington. An infamous leaked phone call between State Department apparatchik Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt revealed that Washington had chosen exactly who would be in the new government several weeks before they had even removed president Yanukovich from power.
Donbass predictably rejected and resisted the legitimacy of the new regime in Kiev with the support of Russia. Instead of calling for a “unity government”, a plan for which Western European states had signed as guarantors, NATO countries quietly supported an “anti-terrorist operation” against eastern Ukrainians, resulting in at least 14,000 deaths.
The Minsk-2 peace agreement of February 2015 produced a path for peace, yet the US and UK sabotaged it for the next 7 years. Furthermore, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Francois Hollande recently admitted that both Germany and France considered the deal an opportunity to buy time for Ukraine to arm itself and prepare for war.
In the 2019 election, millions of Ukrainians were disenfranchised, including those living in Russia. Nevertheless, the result was a landslide with 73% of Ukrainians voting for Vladimir Zelensky’s peace platform based on implementing the Minsk-2 agreement, negotiating with Donbass, protecting the Russian language, and restoring peace with Moscow. However, the far-right militias that were armed and trained by the US effectively laid down a veto by threatening Zelensky and defying him on the front line when he demanded to pull back heavy weapons. Pressured also by the US, Zelensky eventually reversed the entire peace platform the Ukrainians had voted for. Instead, opposition media and political parties were purged, and the main opposition leader, Viktor Medvedchuk was arrested. Subverting the wishes of Ukrainians in order to steer the country towards confrontation with Russia was yet again referred to as “helping”Ukraine.
Towards proxy war
In 2019, the Rand Corporation published a 325-page report ordered by the US Army titled “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground”. In the language of a proxy war, the report advocated arming Ukraine to bleed Moscow stating, “Providing more U.S. military equipment and advice could lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it”. The US Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, similarly explained in 2020 the strategy of arming Ukraine claiming, “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don’t have to fight Russia here”.
In December 2021, the former head of Russia analysis at the CIA warned that the Kremlin was under growing pressure to invade to prevent Washington from further building up its military presence on its borders, which included modernising Ukrainian ports to fit US warships. “That relationship [US-Ukraine] will be far stronger and deeper, and the United States military will be more firmly entrenched inside Ukraine two to three years from now. So inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky,” George Beebe explained. Yet, despite being convinced that Russia would invade, Washington refused to give any reasonable security guarantees to Moscow.
Kiev agreed to enter into negotiations merely three days into the Russian invasion, which resulted in a peace agreement outline a few weeks later. Former intelligence official Fiona Hill and Angela Stent later penned an article acknowledging that “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbass region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries”.
However, after a visit by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Kiev suddenly withdrew from the peace negotiations. Reports in the Ukrainian and American media have suggested that London and Washington had pressured Kiev to abandon negotiations and instead seek victory on the battlefield with NATO weapons.
Johnson gave multiple speeches warning against a “bad peace,” while German General Harald Kujat, a former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, confirmed that Johnson had sabotaged the peace negotiationsin order to fight a proxy war with Russia: “His reasoning was that the West was not ready for an end to the war”.
The American objectives also had seemingly little to do with “helping” Ukraine. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated US goals in Ukraine as the weakening of a strategic rival: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”. President Biden argued for regime change in Moscow as Putin “cannot remain in power”, which was repeated by Boris Johnson’s op-ed stating that “The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat”.
US Congressman Dan Crenshaw advocated for a proxy war by supplying weapons to Ukraine as “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea”. Similarly, Senator Lindsey Graham argued the US should fight Russia to the last Ukrainian: “I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person”. The rhetoric is eerily similar to that of Hungarian billionaire George Soros, who argued that NATO could dominate if it could use Eastern European soldiers as they accept more deaths than their Western peers: “the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act”.
Following NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s recent Orwellian statement that “weapons are the way to peace”, it is worth assessing if NATO is helping Ukraine or using Ukraine. NATO powers have stated that they are supplying Ukraine with weapons to have a stronger position at the negotiating table, yet one year into the war, no major Western leaders have called for peace talks. NATO has a powerful bargaining chip that would actually help Ukraine, which would be an agreement to end NATO expansion toward Russian borders. However, whitewashing the bloc’s direct contribution to the war prevents a negotiated settlement.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
Liberty International News 