Russian Gas & Oil vs EU Sactions

American and Western policy towards Russia is founded on two serious errors. (A considerable understatement, of course – the past thirty years show that conventional Western ideas of Russia are almost completely wrong.)

But these two are endlessly repeated and, no matter how many times they are proven wrong, they remain the foundational assumptions of the West's attempts to change or control Russia.

First is the idea that the Russian economy is feeble, unbalanced and dependent on income from the West. The second is that Putin is the chief of a band of thieves who, who if made to feel pain, will get rid of him. Sanctions will collapse the first and bring the pain to cause the second. (Another delusion is that once Putin goes, everything will be to the West’s liking – but I did say there was a multitude of misconceptions.)

First let’s consider Russia’s economy. Op-eds that say that the Russian economy is the size of Texas or Belgium or Luxembourg or whatever simply translate rubles into dollars and gallop to their preassigned conclusion. They never ask how big the space program of the country Russia is compared to his, or how many nuclear submarines it makes, or new subway stations, airports or bridges it opens, or whether that country makes all kinds of airplanes and trucks, or how much food it grows and exports or anything else that actually measures a real economy.

As soon as they did, of course, they would see that the Russian economy is much bigger than the puerile ruble-dollar comparison suggests. And, a slightly closer look would reveal that Russia’s economy is almost self-sufficient. But the West carries on confident that Russia is a “gas station with nuclear weapons” and its feeble economy can be easily collapsed. RAND based a whole strategy on Russia’s greatest vulnerability… is its economy, which is comparatively small and highly dependent on energy exports.

They persist in the face of all experience to the contrary. The EU cut food exports to Russia to, I suppose, bring people out into the streets protesting the disappearance of exotic cheese (remember Masha Gessen’s heartbreak about my little cheese?) Russia responded intelligently and is now self-sufficient in food and Europe has lost that market. Biden was going to reduce the ruble to rubble but Moscow effortlessly countered him and the ruble is now tied to energy – one of the strongest foundations a currency can have.

And still the sanctions pile on. But it’s educational – now we know a lot more about what potash is used for and where it comes from. And neon – who knew that was important? Rare earths! Beer bottles! Moscow is only just now starting to counter-sanction and the world is discovering that Russia is a major producer of a lot of important things and if you sanction them, you will find yourself running short of lots of things you’d never heard of. (You’d think anyone who owned an atlas would be able to figure out that a country as large as Russia must be a big producer of most resources).

Biden can blame Putin all he likes, but sanctioning energy and potash is a certain way to drive up prices all round. Biden used to think that Russia had “nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else”. Maybe the people running Russia are better at thinking things out and seeing reality than we thought they were. (Yet another mistaken Western assumption – what is there in the last twenty years that suggests we’re smarter than they are?)

The idea that Russia is a big criminal conspiracy and Putin is the Boss of Bosses is the foundation of the personal sanctions strategy. So-and-so is deemed “close to Putin”, whatever that means, and he’s prevented from going to Paris to buy cheese and his yacht is stolen confiscated. Angry, he sits down with the other capos and decides it’s time the Boss was found face down in a bowl of kasha and blood. The think tankers tell us that Putin is the Chief Thief holding onto power by spreading the loot around, fake elections and making critics disappear. (By the way, wasn’t he supposed to have tried to kill Navalny, where’s the oped savant explaining why he’s still alive?)

All elections in Russia are fake, all opinion polls are fake, all media is controlled by the Kremlin, the underbosses are hurting so why is Putin still there? It surely couldn’t be that he is the very popular and respected elected head of state – to suggest that would be to call into question three decades of US and EU think tankery. Therefore he must be just one more sanction away from being whacked out. And so more names – all “close to Putin” – are added to more lists. But nothing changes.

These two errors run on and on. Russia is now the most sanctioned country ever and Western politicians still think another round of “tough sanctions” will do the job. But the more sanctions it survives, the more sanction-proof Russia becomes.

Wars are irruptions of brutal reality into fantasy and the Ukraine war is laying bare the empty complacency at the root of the West’s view of Russia. It’s going to be a cold hungry winter in Europe and in parts of America. Can’t blame Putin forever.

But the depressing truth is that minds are rarely changed, you have to change the man. How much longer will the West’s leaders outlast their repeated failures?

Original here.

Two selected comments

1. Posted by: Arganthonios | Jun 23 2022 14:24 utc | 6 

Supremacism inevitably leads to stupidity. 

First it leads to overestimating oneself and understimating the enemy. 

As judgement is compromised, stupid decisions are made. 

The supremacists are unable to honestly and groundedly asess the stupid decisions they made, so they double down and deflect. 

With each iteration of this cycle, stupidity grows more and more ingrained.

2. Posted by: ianMoone | Jun 23 2022 14:36 utc | 10

It seems Russia & Russians are being slandered in the same way Caucasians (esp men) are in US/Canada or participants/supporters of Trucker Convoy or those not accepting of official State narratives. Genocide always starts that way:
1. Classification: People divided into "us & them"
2. Symbolization: People FORCED to identify themselves
3. Discrimination: People begin to face systemic discrimination
4. Dehumanization: People are equated with animals, vermin or diseases
5. Organization: Gov't creates specific groups (police/military) to enforce policies
6. Polarization: Gov't creates propaganda to turn public against target group
7. Preparation: Official action to remove/relocate people
8. Persecution: Beginning of murders, theft of property, trial massacres
9. Extermination: Wholesale elimination of target group. It's not considered "extermination" or murder because target group are NOT considered human
10. Denial: Gov't denies it has committed any crime

IMHO we're at stage 6 at least, as steps 1-5 have already been played out over the last 2+ years

Don't agree? Well that's because you don't believe men can be that depraved. I hold no such delusion…

END

Guns-and-Butter Curve

The American economy, the largest and most dynamic in the world, is a geopolitical issue. And right now, it is in a predictable period of dysfunction. It’s been compared – rightly, in my opinion – to the tumult of the 1970s. Unemployment reached 8.2 percent in 1975, inflation rates hit 14.4 percent in 1980 and interest rates were 11.2 percent in 1979. I bought my first house in 1978 at 19 percent interest. It was a hard time, and it was intimately linked to the Vietnam War.

Lyndon B. Johnson inherited that war and intensified it. The U.S. was facing an election in 1964 and another in 1968. By then, things in Vietnam were not going well. Arguably more important to Johnson was what he called the Great Society, a massive and very expensive attempt to wage war on poverty. He was faced with a choice between “guns and butter.” A massive social program and a full-scale war were incompatible, but Johnson was ideologically committed to the social program and couldn’t abandon the war. He decided to do both. It was at that point that the economic crisis that would erupt in the 1970s began.

Guns and butter meant either massive borrowing, or massive loosening by the Federal Reserve. Everyone wanted to join Johnson in having his cake and eating it too. The result was both money printing and borrowing, creating massive inflation and weakening of the dollar.

Richard Nixon was elected later, inheriting not only the Vietnam War but also an economy that seemed to be out of control. In August 1970, he did two things nearly simultaneously: He imposed a freeze on prices and wages for 90 days, and he abandoned the gold standard, which had been established by the Bretton Woods Agreement. That agreement obligated Washington to convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. The sudden freeze on prices immobilized the economy, and abandoning the gold standard made the dollar more volatile. Broadly speaking, it decreased in value and led to inflation.

The unemployment rate rose because laying people off was the only way to manage expenses. Interest rates and inflation rose. It appeared that everything was out of control, but the real blow was yet to come. In October 1973, with Nixon wallowing in the Watergate scandal, Egypt and Syria caught Israel by surprise in a stunning and unexpected attack. The U.S. held back from supporting Israel, but as Israel started to run out of artillery shells and other necessities, the U.S. began to airlift supplies in. Arab oil producers responded by placing an oil embargo on the United States and Israel’s other supporters, particularly in Europe. It was a stunning blow to the U.S. economy, where oil prices not only rose but oil became unavailable. Gas stations that had fuel had lines of cars a half mile lined up. Oil was an essential commodity, and it was unavailable. Inflation surged. Unemployment soared as businesses closed. Interest rates rose as banks protected reserves. The oil embargo continued for months among some producers. It’s not excessive to say that the American and other economies were heading toward meltdown. The political maneuvers that had impacted the U.S. economy over previous years now seemed modest.

What began with the Vietnam War accelerated with the Arab-Israeli War. The real pain did not come until the early 1980s, when a new political paradigm confronted the idea that inflation and high interest rates not only affected private life but drastically constrained investment and in turn opened the door to Japanese exports. A shift in the tax code that increased investment and decreased consumption solved the problems created first by war and then by politics. Ronald Reagan happened to be president and carried out policies that he had no choice but to carry out. What started with guns and butter ended in the capital that drove the technology boom.

It is easy to blame Johnson and Nixon, but they executed policies demanded by the public. The public wanted the problems solved at no cost to them. Since that was impossible, the political system generated the illusion of a solution. That illusion satisfied short-term public demands, the demands that frequently end in greater pain than they imagined.

In other words, war begat an unintended consequence. Another war imposed an extraordinary hardship but led to an upheaval in the political system. As I have written elsewhere, this is how our culture works. In our era, the end of the cycle began with COVID-19, which had the same disruptive effect as a war and created the same raging anger. This has been followed by another war, Ukraine, which is having a massive effect on the global economic system. Inflation is surging and interest rates rising.

If my model follows course, the political system will not be able to solve the problems before the end of the decade. We will of course blame the politicians for what happens, as that is an American tradition. The irresistible process creates the pain, and the miracles demanded by the public will make things worse. The politicians will be blamed. But it clears out the system and readies us for the future.

Original here.

Read also

1. “Who Really Killed the Gold Standard?”. By Jay Zawatsky. The National Interest. Published on March 18, 2015. Retrieved on June 29, 2022.
2. “Gold standard”. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Page last edited on 27 June 2022, at 20:01 (UTC). Retrieved on June 29, 2022.

END

A Longa História da Eugenia

Eugenia (do Grego Antigo εύ̃ (eû) ‘bom, bem’ e -γενής (genḗs) ‘vir a existir, crescer’) é um conjunto de crenças e práticas que visam melhorar a qualidade genética de uma população humana, historicamente via da exclusão das pessoas e dos grupos considerados inferiores ou da promoção dos considerados superiores. Nos últimos anos, o termo renasceu nos debates bioéticos sobre o uso de novas tecnologias como CRISPR/Cas e exame genético, com um debate acalorado sobre se essas tecnologias devem, ou não, serem ditas eugénicas.
— Eugenics. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Accessed and translated on June 23, 2022.

Eugenia: o perigo das ideologias!

À falta de vida boa,
a boa morte (cortesia do Estado)

Nos 90 anos do Admirável Mundo Novo de Aldous Huxley aconselharia ler a passagem sobre a eutanásia. Vale a pena contemplar o requintado horror – e imaginar a sórdida realidade em que pode traduzir-se.

Jaime Nogueira Pinto • Observador • 18 de Junho de 2022, às 05:16 • Tem comentários dos leitores

A aprovação da Lei da Eutanásia, à socapa, nas vésperas de um fim-de-semana grande, é bem a imagem do país nesta Terceira República, com a sua anestesiada e anestesiante classe política e a sua acomodada  e distractiva comunicação social, oscilante entre a histeria em prol das “boas causas” e a ocultação das más notícias – que passam orwellianamente a factos que nunca ocorreram, para evitar que promovam as “más causas” e atrasem a construção do mundo de tolerância e inclusão que nos aguarda algures para lá do arco-íris.

Objectividade mediática 

A detenção pela polícia norte-americana de “um homem armado, com uma pistola, uma navalha e outras armas” (estou a citar do New York Times) foi um dos tais factos que “nunca ocorreram” – e que, por isso, não mereceu aqui qualquer destaque ou menção. E, no entanto, um homem, John Roske, de 26 anos, foi detido junto à casa do juiz Brett Kavanaugh, um dos juízes conservadores do Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos, tendo depois confessado à polícia que, chocado com a informação de que o Supremo poderia reverter a legislação sobre o aborto, quisera matar o Juiz e depois suicidar-se.

Em Março de 2020, o líder da bancada democrata no Senado, Chuck Schumer, senador por Nova Iorque, ameaçara num comício os juízes Neil Gorsuch e Brett Kavanaugh pelas suas posições anti-aborto:“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.” Pelos vistos foi ouvido. Só nós é que não ouvimos nada.

É claro que nada disto importa porque nada disto aconteceu – nem as ameaças do Senador, nem o atentado ao Juiz –, daí o silêncio. Só teria acontecido, e aí sim com vasto e vistoso vendaval informativo, se um senador conservador (ou seja, “de extrema-direita”) tivesse ameaçado juízes democráticos (ou seja, “humanistas, isentos e razoáveis”) e um paranóico (ou seja, um “agente da direita radical”) se tivesse deslocado da Califórnia para a Costa Leste munido de um pequeno arsenal para executar o visado. Nada de novo e nada de especificamente nacional, a não ser no seguidismo, já que, neste como noutros aspectos, os media portugueses se limitaram a imitar as grandes cadeias televisivas norte-americanas – a ABC, NBC, CBS e a CNN – no silêncio que guardaram sobre o assunto. Silêncio que só a FOX quebrou.

Bons exemplos 

Os nazis guiavam-se pela Ciência e cultivavam a higiene racial e social para que a Volksgemeinschaft, a comunidade popular, não sofresse nem fosse importunada por vidas incómodas, indignas, humilhantes e extremamente dispendiosas e trabalhosas. Era de melhorar a raça humana e de progresso social e científico que se tratava.A ideia tinha sido já sido desenvolvida pelo inglês Francis Galton. Galton vinha de uma família de banqueiros, era primo de Darwin e frequentara o King’s College e Cambridge. Interessando-se pelo estudo da hereditariedade e inspirado pela teoria da selecção natural do primo Charles, pensara em formas científicas de melhorar ou de apurar a raça humana, no caso, a inglesa, evitando cruzamentos indesejáveis e promovendo os desejáveis.Nas sociedades anglo-saxónicas da segunda metade do século XIX, princípios do século XX, a Eugenia – o modo de evitar a reprodução dos “inferiores” e estimular a reprodução dos “superiores” – encontrava grande aceitação. Até Winston Churchill a endossava. A detenção dos “mentally inadequate” e a esterilização dos “unfit”, para que não perpetuassem tendências doentias ou criminais, era considerada uma medida adequada para proteger a sociedade. Em 1908, nomeou-se uma Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded para tratar disso. Os “débeis mentais”, os “pobres de espírito”, os “deploráveis” podiam esperar alguma coisa do Reino dos Céus, mas muito pouco do Reino Unido e dos seus governantes. Nos Estados Unidos, as teorias de Galton também tinham despertado grande entusiasmo, com o Estado de Indiana, em 1907, a sancionar a esterilização dos “social misfits”. Em 1926, vinte e três Estados da União tinham aprovado leis de esterilização compulsiva dos “inaptos”. Mas, enfim, eram oligarquias civilizadas, com o seu paternalismo liberal e a sua divisão de poderes e o processo podia ser devidamente enquadrado e protegido por comissões e excepções.Mas eis que as consciências se vão anestesiando e as ideias se vão disseminando e extremando e Hitler se entusiasma com a Eugenia. Além disso, em Weimar, com os problemas sociais a agudizarem-se a partir da crise de 29, já se começara a encorajar a esterilização dos socialmente inaptos.Em 1929 constitui-se a Nationalsozialistischer Deutsche Ärztebund (a Liga dos Médicos Nacionais Socialistas) e em Abril de 1933, com três meses de Hitler no poder, os médicos judeus do sector público hospitalar eram proibidos de exercer a profissão. Em 14 de Julho de 1933 era aprovada uma lei que ordenava a esterilização compulsiva dos portadores de uma série de doenças hereditárias. Os Tribunais de Saúde examinavam os pacientes e decidiam. Esses tribunais tinham três juízes – dois médicos e um funcionário do partido, “especialista” em doenças hereditárias e em Eugenia. Nos seis anos que precederam a guerra, 300 mil criaturas foram assim esterilizadas.Se a Eugenia tratava de estimular medicamente a “selecção natural” dos “bem-nascidos”, a Eutanásia tratava de identificar os candidatos a uma “boa-morte”: os que, não tendo sido bafejados à nascença com bons genes ou com vidas dignas e felizes, teriam o dever de morrer, para atenuar o sofrimento social e para pôr fim à própria miséria, impedindo que pesasse sobre os demais e se multiplicasse. Também nesta matéria o regime nacional-socialista andou depressa. Havia, como há sempre, uns especialistas e juristas de serviço para abençoar essas boas práticas. O livro Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens (Aprovando a destruição da vida que não vale a pena ser vivida), do jurista Karl Binding e do psiquiatra Alfred Hoche, trouxe a base teórica e ética para que se instituísse, em boa consciência, o direito de matar ou de ajudar a morrer os portadores de “vidas sem valor”.

A argumentação era do mais puro darwinismo social: para bem de todos, a sociedade não podia nem devia sustentar os seus “desgraçados” – os velhos, os doentes, os aleijados, os pobres de todos os Evangelhos. Dar-lhes uma “boa-morte” era a melhor solução.Não é minha intenção fazer aqui uma reductio ad Hitlerum dos partidários da Eutanásia. Admito sempre que os meus adversários ou inimigos políticos tenham as suas razões e valores, contrários ou diferentes dos meus mas que, na sua coerência e lógica, sejam admissíveis e certos para eles. Rejeito, quase epidermicamente, o maniqueísmo ideológico daqueles para quem os que não pensam da mesma forma não passam de miseráveis, indignos de respeito e de convivência democrática; mas parece-me útil e conveniente lembrar a génese, os caminhos e os reveses das ideias – ou pelo menos não os esquecer.

Pioneiros “civilizacionais” 

Independentemente de questões de princípio, uma das coisas que devia ter suscitado alguma reflexão a uma classe política e mediática secularmente ansiosa por seguir “as nações civilizadas” seria o facto de apenas sete países – dos quais quatro europeus, a Suíça, a Holanda, a Bélgica e a Espanha – permitirem a Eutanásia. Não foi o caso. Ainda que não houvesse qualquer pressão social, tudo foi feito como que à pressão, em passo acelerado e com caracter de urgência.  Porquê? Talvez porque, para os nossos novos condes de Abranhos e conselheiros Acácios, o acesso rápido à “civilização”, ao “progresso” e à “modernidade” já não passe tanto por tentar copiar as “nações civilizadas” mas por  tentar ultrapassá-las, mediante a célere aplicação de uma agenda legislativa radical avançada capaz de conferir aos legisladores um “pioneirismo civilizacional” imediato. Um pioneirismo que não se compadece com auscultações, reflexões ou pareceres contrários de especialistas e peritos.  Assim, num país pobre e que este regime não enriqueceu, num país em que, em todas as classes sociais, os mais velhos, os mais doentes, os que mais sofrem, tendem a achar que o seu tempo já passou e que são um peso para as famílias e para a sociedade, abre-se uma possibilidade legislativa de morte a pedido. Dá-se essa liberdade aos cidadãos em sofrimento, abre-se-lhes essa escolha, propõe-se-lhes esse caminho.  Para seu bem e para o bem de todos.  E com a introdução de semelhante proposta, a resposta ao sofrimento pessoal, ao sofrimento intolerável, deixa de centrar-se na mobilização de recursos para a mitigação da dor, na oferta de cuidados médicos e de apoios sociais, no incentivo estatal, moral e financeiro ao esforço comunitário, solidário e familiar para tratar, acompanhar e valorizar a vida dos que mais sofrem.

Podem não se selecionar as vidas que já não valem a pena ser vividas, como outrora no Terceiro Reich, mas fica a sugestão – para que quem sofre, para que quem se sente um peso insuportável para si mesmo e para os outros, a equacione com toda a liberdade.  E quem, livremente e em consciência, decidir aceitar a sugestão, pode então contar com o Estado; um Estado que pouco faz para lhe proporcionar uma vida boa e digna mas que lhe passa agora a oferecer uma boa morte, uma morte digna e rápida, uma morte moderna, higienicamente administrada em ambiente hospitalar.No nosso Parlamento, dominado por “forças de esquerda” que se dizem “humanistas”, esta conquista da esquerda unida (com a honrosa excepção do PCP) foi anunciada e aplaudida como uma conquista civilizacional.Nos 90 anos da publicação do Admirável Mundo Novo de Aldous Huxley, aconselharia a leitura da passagem sobre a eutanásia. O admirável mundo novo de Huxley é mesmo admirável, virado para o hedonismo e para a felicidade; um mundo sem guerra, sem violência, sem crime, sem família; um mundo onde o sexo é livre e as crianças nascem em série industrial. No World State, para a felicidade ser perfeita, não há más notícias e o sofrimento não pode existir, por isso não devem ser permitidos os “infelizes” – os velhos, os doentes, os que já não são úteis à sociedade. A Eutanásia está garantida e oferece-se em belas e luxuosas clínicas, com música de fundo e écrans de televisão. Vale a pena ler para contemplar o requintado horror – e imaginar a sórdida realidade em que pode traduzir-se.É, por isso, importante atentar na forma como votaram a lei da Eutanásia  muitos dos que  aqui  também legislam sobre a vida, a morte, a família  e os valores à volta delas – que, a par das questões das fronteiras, da unidade, da identidade e da soberania nacional, são os valores que hoje mais contam e dividem. Para muitos, foi como se de uma minudência económica ou fiscal ou de um “progresso civilizacional” corriqueiro, só embargado por retrógrados e reaccionários, se tratasse.A favor, totalmente a favor, votaram o Bloco de Esquerda e a Iniciativa Liberal, confirmando o parecer de alguns de que, tirando a Economia (que depende mais do BCE, da Comissão de Bruxelas e da guerra da Ucrânia que dos partidos locais), partilham muitos dos valores e ideais disponíveis no hipermercado global. Contra, totalmente contra, votaram o Chega e o PCP que, curiosamente, aqui convergem na defesa da dignidade da vida e na recusa em abrir portas social e civilizacionalmente perigosas (para grande satisfação de alguns “centristas” que, vendo-se aqui longe dos “extremos”, se acharam justificados na normalização da sua radicalidade). A grande maioria do partido do poder, o PS, votou a favor, com sete honrosas excepções; a grande maioria do PSD votou contra, com meia dúzia de excepções.Os eleitores que também se preocupam com o rumo das coisas no que é verdadeiramente importante, deverão, para o futuro, ter presente esta votação.

Original do artigo de Jaime Nogueira Pinto e comentários dos leitores aqui. Eugenistas notáveis em baixo:

1. Thomas Robert Malthus
2. Francis Galton
3. Sybil Neville-Rolfe
4. Margaret Sanger

FIM

Boris+Biden contra Putin

1

Globalists have entered

the kill phase of Great Reset; 

Remember the Deagel population forecast?
It now makes total sense

This was a big week for the globalists. They feel it’s their time, go time, to launch the most difficult phase of the Great Reset so they can get on with what they call the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

By Leo Hohmann at Leo Hohmann's Blog on May 26, 2022

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, as explained by World Economic Forum guru Klaus Schwab, will lead to a “fusion” of every human being’s physical, biological and digital identities. It’s basically the dawning of a new era based on transhumanism and technocracy, something akin to what was laid out in the novel Brave New World.

But they can’t get there until they reset everything. Kill off the old. Bring on the new.

Resetting the world isn’t something you can pull off by just pushing a button. It requires a series of well-designed global crises, as Schwab and his chief advisor Yuval Noah Harari have said on more than one occasion.

So the globalists have been meeting this week in Geneva at the World Health Assembly and they have been meeting in Davos at the World Economic Forum summit. The two cities, Geneva and Davos, are both located in Switzerland, about three hours apart by car. Between these two meetings, the globalist predator class will be getting their instructions on what to do and what to expect over the next 12 months. I am calling this 12-month window the opening salvo in the kill phaseof the Great Reset.

Schwab opened the meeting at Davos by saying “the future is not just happening; the future is built by us, by a powerful community, as you here in this room.”

Schwab said “we must prepare for an angrier world,” which I take as a bad sign that the globalists are getting anxious, feeling that if they don’t take drastic action soon all their plans to erect an end-times global government could be wasted.

Schwab added that, “We have the means to improve the state of the world, but two conditions are necessary:

“The first one is that we act all as stakeholders of larger communities.

“And second is that we collaborate.”

My question for Klaus is this: Collaborate on what?

And what does he mean, exactly, by “improve” the state of the world?

Improvements for whom? I believe he’s referring to improved conditions for the 1 percent who run the big banks and corporations and their minions, which might jack it up to 3 or 4 percent. For the rest of us, they have an agenda of misery.

Time for a culling

If we look at the WEF/UN agenda, which is supported wholeheartedly by the governments of the U.S., U.K., E.U., Canada and Australia, it’s all pointing to a mass culling of the human population. They have triggered the kill phase.

As they see it, we can surmise from their rhetoric, the culling is needed in order to save the planet and its resources for they, the globalist elites represented this week at Davos and Geneva.

They have told us their plans ahead of time. They always do. We will own nothing, we will have no privacy and we will learn to like being totally dependent on the government and its corporate partners for our very survival.

David Beasley, executive director of the United Nations World Food Program, spoke at Davos and had cheery news. Watch his brief comments in the video below.

Full article and readers' comments here

END