112 Comments

  3. The discussion on the WHO’s push for world control over health pandemics points to an interesting side bar, was the COVID pandemic weaponized as part of a method to steal an election (2020 mail in ballots). Mr Global controls most main stream media, including social media platforms, most world leaders (Young Globalist grads of Klaus Schwab), has use of the financial levers through entities like Blackrock, Vanguard, and now a proven lever (pandemic control) that can be used to steal elections. Watch for the November mid terms to be coempted by another outbreak/lockdown in September/October.

  4. Is the push towards China (Biden admin)and destroying the dollar part of Mr Global’s plan? Remember Justine Trudeau (Klaus Schwab’s poster boy) stated in a town hall video a few years ago how much he admires the CCP’s methods of dictatorial control to get the Chinese people to do as demanded by the CCP (and Trudeau has implemented these tactics in Canada)! Is the CCP the model being foisted by Mr Global to have a shared partnership in global dominance (complete digital control of the population)? After WW2, Berlin was shared by 4 power groups, Soviets, U.S., Britain, France. Is Mr Global’s modus operandi the same, where the globe will be shared by the Cities of London, Washington DC, the Vatican (Rome)as one group and the CCP (China)as the other group? Russia is being played to be part of the Chinese system. When the dust settles, digital currencies/ control via passports will be common to the west (Mr Global) and the East (China/Russia) unless a great awakening occurs in western countries. I don’t think the Russian people are aware just as citizens of the western nations are not fully aware where this global arrow is heading. I think it will be a shared platform between west and east with digital control as the “yoke that binds”. Not sure where India will end up. Multi Polar makes sense.

  5. Hi Catherine: I listed to your interview this week and I do have a comment. Regarding dual nationals, the U.S. does not have the ability to prevent people from being dual nationals because the U.S. cannot dictate to another country whom to consider a citizen. If an Israeli nationalizes in the U.S. and returns to Israel, he or she must enter with an Israeli passport. Exactly as a U.S. citizen who emigrates and wishes to return to the U.S. must present a U.S. passport or renounce US citizenship. Many U.S. citizens do renounced their U.S. citizenship to avoid being subject to U.S. taxes for income earned abroad.

      1. I swear that I was told back 40-50 years ago that UK/US was the only dual citizenship allowed with US. I believe that was told to me by a US/UK citizen — someone born in UK of American parents, I believe.

        According to Wikipedia, there were treaties that would have allowed one country to strip citizenship in another after living in the new country a certain number of years. “The Bancroft treaties, also called the Bancroft conventions, were a series of agreements made in the late 19th and early 20th centuries between the United States and other countries.[1] They recognized the right of each party’s nationals to become naturalized citizens of the other; and defined circumstances in which naturalized persons were legally presumed to have abandoned their new citizenship and resumed their old one” Jimmy Carter abandoned the Bancroft Treaties in 1980.

        The 1967 US Supreme Court decision Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 “ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.[1][2][3] The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim’s right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.”

        So, it’s complicated!

  6. Here are my thoughts on oil, the embargo, and the effects on the dollar as reserve currency:

    I am not, and have not been, favorable to Britain or its royalty. The so-called surprise find of sufficient gas reserves in the North Sea to extricate the homelands of Britain from the fallout of shutting off the Nordstream pipeline, would had to have been planned all along, even if as insurance. I would not be surprised if production platforms are already in place to provide the gas.

    Oil (and gas) is a well-recognized commodity that is fungible by itself, without regard to exchange currency. Literally, you can exchange a barrel for a barrel, presuming similar quality. Whatever currency the accounting happens to be done in is irrelevant. Oil exchanges take place all day, everyday, without surcease. A supply disruption such as the rejection of Russian gas through the Nord stream pipeline may raise the price of the commodity temporarily until replacement supply is secured. The replacement supply, it should not be doubted, could very well come from Russia. Just through a different route.

    One can imagine a few valves being turned and the identical European gas now goes to China, which can then forgo imports from a different source. That different source goes and seeks another market. That’s the way this all works. It’s just the temporary spike caused by the dislocation that raises the price. In a similar fashion, production in the US can, and presumably is, coming back online to take advantage of current conditions.

    It should not be, however, a matter of gratitude to the oil industry that its heroism has saved our bacon. There are, undoubtedly many WEF representatives inside oil companies nowadays. They may indeed have nobly stupid ideas about climate change. They may be there for that very purpose. But oil companies are nothing if not wily. They can today, with only the slightest reduction in price-sensitive demand, get three times the margin per barrel that they were getting previously. It is in their interest to do just that. If you were a BP, and guilty of negligence to the tune of $20 billion for the Macondo spill, you are making back that and then some. This is how it works.

    After price shocks such as we are now experiencing subside, though, we are back to a volume times margin equation, which tends to end up being dictated by demand. We may all rest assured that oil reserves are beyond anything required in the foreseeable future. Money is made by pumping, selling, and consuming oil. There is no substitute for it at present. The US is well fixed in terms of reserves, and it should therefore be expected to be prominent in international trade. We do have a brand new population of more than 2 million nearly loyal Americans that have entered the country in the past 12 months. Mostly, they come with the clothes they are carrying. They will demand many necessities that are the stuff of an economy. The rest of us will continue to demand some similar amount to what we have been. Thus, I can confidently assert that rumors of the dollar’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

    All of this is said irrespective of the blithering idiots who now govern us. You and Joseph Farrell should do a report card on President Biden. I’m sure fictitious Senator Blutarski would have earned a better report card from his days in Faber College.

    1. Don’t forget the tax implications of possessing oil. I have read that companies always claim to have minimal reserves or else their governments will tax them. For similar reasons, U.S. tax law has ridiculous depreciation rules that incentive U.S. companies to invest in production facilities outside of the U.S.

      1. Sure. They have many more ways than six from Sunday to make and shield a buck. Like the pharmaceutical companies do now, the oils wrote the laws to suit themselves and the friends they’d bought in Congress passed them for reasonable bribes. Another thing most don’t realize is LIFO accounting, which taxes the gain on today’s barrel sale on the basis of the current cost of a barrel. Tends to keep profits minimal, no?

    2. John:

      You are right that there are a lot of fundamental strengths behind the dollar system. That said, anyone who can build liquidity away from the dollar should and will do it. Otherwise from where I sit it comes down to who has what weaponry. That is pretty much secret, but the results will tell. Someone once said that in war it is not who is right but who is left.

      1. One thing we can both be sure of is that the strength of our promises made as a nation is not a contributing factor to the preservation of the dollar as a reserve currency.

        I might have mentioned earlier that the British are no better, in fact have a much longer history of reneging on obligations. They have taught us well, and we have been their bodyguard.

        2. The strength of our respect for the laws related to the functioning and trading of our currency, credit and related securities does impact the preservation and market share of the dollar as reserve currency.

          1. Yes. That’s what I’m saying. You freeze assets on depositors for political reasons, you scare off other business.

  7. that ‘Daylight Savings is bad for you’ news has been known about for years. Several years. They’re getting desperate.

    1. Most people get up early to fish. I guess that’s bad for you, too. ? ? ? ? ? ?

Comments are closed.