Wednesday, February 19, 2025

CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: It's not Make America Great Again. It's MBT...Make Billionaires Trillionaires

Posted by at No comments:

 

03:35.  I want to start by just looking at what any new Administration coming in would face because we are in for big change and that has nothing to do with the incoming Administration that has to do with the environment they face.

So the first thing they are facing was a move by the United States at end of the Soviet Union to become a unipolar Empire, and that effort has failed.  We were a unipolar Empire for a period of time and now the US with the loss of the war in Ukraine and events in the Middle East is having to pull back and say, "Okay, we are one of several great powers.  So we assert that we're the greatest power, but it's a multi-polar world."  So you see the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, saying "It's a multi-polar world, and we have to adjust to a multipolar world."  

Secretary of Defense is making the same noise, of course, what you're seeing with the discussions around the Ukraine reflect that.  So, essentially the Neocon strategy lost and lost big in the Ukraine, and the incoming Administration,  whoever they are, whatever their philosophy is, has to deal with that.  It is what it is.  

05:06.  The second thing that has happened is if you go back to the very interesting Australian Think Tank that tracks the top technologies and who is in the lead all the time among the top technologies globally.  They tracked 64 technologies at the end of 2007.  The US led in 60 of the 64.  And today the US leads in 7 of the 64, and China leads in 57 and is rapidly increasing their leadership in the.  And so the new Administration is looking at that, particularly AI, of all the technologies they are most concerned with the artificial intelligence, and they're saying "Oh my God, China is replacing us."  Now if that happens and this is not the first Administration that has faced that issue they are starting to decouple from China and I can't emphasize enough about how big this decoupling is in terms of what it will do globally because we're talking about D globalization and if you look at the average standard of living that the average person has enjoyed since globalization and the growth of manufacturing in China started we've had one Author Peter Zeihan calls "more, more, and more."  De-globalization means "less, less, and less," whether you like it or not.  So, we are talking about taking all the trade that has been happening globally and completely reshuffling the economics of that trade.  So what it means is things that weren't efficient for me to do locally now suddenly it's more attractive to do locally because the tariffs are trade or Transportation expenses so the fundamental economics of what you do locally and what you do globally is dramatically changing.

07:47.  If you're a country that is net energy and the food positive which the US is it buys small amounts on energy but if you're a country that is net energy positive or food and energy and other essentials and you are very entrepreneurial about picking up locally re-industrializing locally where it makes economic sense to you will be in okay shape.  If you're not in a net energy positive on oil and gas and energy and food and, or, you don't make an entrepreneurial transition, you won't be better off.  You'll be much worse off.  So in fact if you look at how the global all the nations line up but we could see resources sucked up by the AI leaders China and the United States and a lot of other countries are going to be thrown overboard.

08:50.  What we saw was a control demolition of every country when it comes to energy right because of climate policies and so now people are saying their bills are through the roof in Australia they're being told they're politely cutting off the power and now the incoming opposition leader the incoming prime minister he's talking about nuclear energy now and data centers and basically there is an auction to people who can benefit from this energy strategy or it's all going to be sucked up by the AI overlords.

09:43.  If you Institute the control grid which is what most of the data centers are already are you are going to create an energy rapacious waste of resources that will suck up all the energy and more.  So it won't go to the people it will go to the grid that you're using to control the people.  And if anything, it runs the risk of, along with the AI, for pushing for depopulation as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic but it's important to understand that every country is dealing with embedded inflation not from the collapse of the dollar but from the collapse of trade.  And part of the problem with the multi-polar world is cooperation and trust, which brings us trade which brings us prosperity.  The more people distrust and the more that agreements break down, and that was the global trade system the United States was . . . everybody was a dependent on the United States to run Brentwood
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

JOEL SALATIN: When the industry blames wild birds, they always say, "Oh, it's these ducks, it's these geese, it's these wild critters that are bringing this in." Listen, any kind of production system that demonizes wildlife is automatically wrong. You can't have any kind of actual, credible food production system in which wildlife is the enemy.

Posted by at No comments:

DEBBIE LERMAN: the virus did not devastate the world. The response devastated the world. Therefore, we should be looking at the origins of the response, not the origins of the virus

🔥🔥"The virus did not devastate the world—the response devastated the world. Therefore, we should be looking at the origins of the response, not the origins of the virus. So any investigation that focuses on the origins of the virus is missing the entire picture."🔥🔥 Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) and Debbie Lerman, a 2023 Brownstone (@brownstoneinst) Fellow and retired science writer, describe for Alex Newman (@ALEXNEWMAN_JOU) of The New American (@NewAmericanMag) how everyone looking for the core truth in matters regarding COVID must be focused on the origins of the "response" to the disease, not the origins of the disease itself. Lerman notes that it was the *response* that "devastated the world," not the "virus." If indeed there even was a virus. (And, of course, much evidence points to there being no SARS-2 virus.) "You need to realize the virus did not devastate the world. The response devastated the world," Lerman says. "Therefore, we should be looking at the origins of the response, not the origins of the virus. So any investigation that focuses on the origins of the virus is missing the entire picture. The origins of response is what we need to address, not the origins of the virus." Latypova goes on to describe how the idea of declaring a "pandemic" before a novel disease has run its course is fraudulent on its face: "In the past, pandemics did not exist... a pandemic is a simultaneous mass illness and death exceeding all the previous mass illnesses and deaths in human history occurring simultaneously all over the world. That does not exist, never happened. Okay? Now epidemics have been historically declared. An epidemic in a public health sense, this is non-nefarious, benign [in a] public health sense, [but still an] epidemic can only be declared retrospectively. After you've collected the data about this current season, mortality, and morbidity, and you compare it to the previous years and it exceeded certain thresholds, then you can say you had an epidemic. So [this COVID pandemic declaration is] nonsense. It's absurdity to take a code, some sort of a random code, genetic code that was uploaded on January 9th to GenBank from China and then say, 'Oh my God, this is a pandemic virus.'" Latypova adds: "I've published on this. I've read several of Ralph Baric's long reports. He co-authored a gigantic report—it's like a book on bioweapons, published by the National Academies of Science in the US. [And] there's numerous very prestigious authors of this book [as well]. They all unanimously say, 'We do not have scientific knowledge that today can predict from the genetic code how dangerous [a] virus is going to be or even if it's going to infect anyone. So how is it possible that they have a sequence that somebody uploaded? "By the way, those [SARS-2] sequences, they're not accurate. They're always consensus sequences because PCR is error-prone. So you have to do numerous runs then average it out and then say, well, sort of like this sequence. Right? But it represents nothing. It's an averaged code." Lerman adds:

"Sasha just gave you why the scientific explanation for why [COVID] could not have been innocent. The public health and national security reason is even if they thought [SARS-2] was a bioweapon that was gonna kill a lot of people, why didn't they tell us? Number one. Number two, if they knew it [was a public health emergency] on February 5th 2020, why did they only start implementing measures on March 13th or 18th or 15th depending on the country or the state? So they could not possibly have been innocent... Even if they all believed that this was a terrible bioweapon that China created at the Wuhan lab and Fauci funded it... they still didn't tell us for a month and a half." 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

SCOTT RITTER: Imagine you are an American mercenary in Ukraine today. You are truly f*%#'d. If the Russians capture you, they execute you. Because you’re not a lawful combatant.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)