GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Neil Oliver: This Supposed Utopia We’re Having Rammed Down Our Throats Isn’t Working
Red Voice Media Published July 2, 2022

'My body, my choice' pro-abortion movement. Where were they to speak out against the coercion and extreme disciplinary measures taken to get people jabbed?"
Upload via The Vigilant Fox
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Population Control: The War Against Unborn Babies and Reproductive Health 2:12 min

Population Control: The War Against Unborn Babies and Reproductive Health
Red Voice Media Published July 2, 2022

A new study from Dr. James Thorp, covered by The Epoch Times, details an outrageously increased risk of reproductive and fetal abnormalities compared to the influenza vaccine.
His findings are listed below: (Credit - Epoch Times)
• Abnormal uterine bleeding (menstrual irregularity) is 1000-fold greater
• Miscarriages are 50-fold greater
• Fetal chromosomal abnormalities are 100-fold greater
• Fetal malformation is 50-fold greater
• Fetal cystic hygroma (a major malformation) is 90-fold greater
• Fetal cardiac disorders are 40-fold greater
• Fetal arrhythmia is 50-fold greater
• Fetal cardiac arrest is 200-fold greater
• Fetal vascular mal-perfusion is a 100-fold greater
• Fetal growth abnormalities are 40-fold greater
• Fetal abnormal surveillance tests are 20-fold greater
• Fetal placental thrombosis is 70-fold greater
Dr. Robert Malone: "It goes on and on and on."
Full Video: Dr. Robert Malone: MSM Is an Arm Of Propaganda for the Pharmaceutical Companies [VIDEO]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
2:58 min

We Stand With Dutch Farmers - Welcome To The Revolution
Live From The Shed (Canada) Published July 2, 2022

We stand proudly with Dutch Farmers in the continued fight against government overreach and the globalist elite. Let Freedom Ring!

^^^^^
1656801254383.png
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Fake Meat Grown in Labs Might Make Investors Rich, but It’s a Nightmare for Human Health

Money is driving far too many things in the dystopian society forming around us. This isn't a knock on capitalism. It's about stopping those harming others for the sake of profit.

by Ethan Huff
July 2, 2022

The inputs used to make cell-cultured “meat,” which can hardly be called meat at all, are so unknown in terms of their effects on the human body that it truly is a crime against humanity for the stuff to be gradually making its way into the food supply.

Currently, fake meat is only available to consumers in Singapore. But there are effects to get it into the meat cases in North America and elsewhere in the not-too-distant future, which worries Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumer Reports.

Differing from the fake meat offered by companies like Impossible Foods, lab-cultured meat involves the use of bio-engineered proteins to artificially induce undifferentiated animal stem cells into differentiating into muscle tissue.

“This is done in bio-reactor vats similar to those used to make beer,” explained Martha Rosenberg, writing for the Defender.

It is a promising industry for wealthy fat cats like Bill Gates and Sir Richard Branson, who stand to become even more obscenely wealthy than they already are from lucrative investments. But it is a nightmare for human health as nobody knows what lab-cultured meat really does to the body.

In order to make lab-cultured meat, Hansen said, recombinants or manipulated DNA segments must be inserted into the biopsied flesh of animals. And the end product has never actually been tested for nutritional content, as academics have never received a single sample for testing.

“This implies problems behind the scenes,” Hansen said. “I doubt this technology will work.”

There won’t be anything left that’s natural once these demons get finished tampering with the entire food supply
The only reason to even make fake meat like this is so one smaller group of people can get rich or richer off the backs of the “useless eaters,” whom the “elite” consider to be non-deserving of real meat.

While the rest of us gobble down crickets and mealworms at best – and lab-cultured meat at worst – the upper crust will be fine-dining on real steaks taken from real animals the way nature intended.

The way they are officially branding it, though, is to claim that lab-cultured meat is “great for the environment” and will help to stop “global warming” and “climate change.”

Just like genetically modified organisms (GMOs), lab-cultured meat is also a proprietary thing that is owned and patented by private corporations rather than available to the general public like real plant seeds and real animals.

At least 70 different companies are trying to get into the lab-cultured meat businesses at this very moment. And many more, if they see enough dollar-sign potential, are likely to pile in as well.

The really disturbing part of all this is the ease with which these companies will likely be able to get their products to market, seeing as how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a fully compromised “captured” agency.

Chances are that once lab-cultured meat is ready for the big time, the FDA will quickly usher it to market under its “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) program. This was according to Tom Neltner, the chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

“Under the program,” explained Rosenberg, “a company simply tells the FDA its product is safe, based on the company’s own documentation, and bypasses the public comment process.”

Neltner would prefer to see such products have to be approved using a “food additive petition,” which includes a “right to challenge.” But time will tell how the FDA handles this emerging industry.

“Wouldn’t touch this fake crap with a ten-foot pole,” wrote a commenter at the Defender. “Poison just like the jabs. No thanks we pass on both.”

More related news coverage can be found at FrankenFood.news.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

ESG: How Corporations Are Using Environment Concerns to Scam You

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA
July 2, 2022

ESG

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
  • ESG, or environmental, social and governance, funds are supposed to be those focused on companies with strong environmental ethics and responsibility
  • Further investigation reveals rampant greenwashing has occurred, and many ESG-labeled funds are far from “sustainable”
  • The SEC is investigating Goldman Sachs overs its ESG funds, including whether the bank’s management of ESG funds differs from what it has disclosed to investors
  • In May 2022, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index, despite its focus on creating environmentally conscious vehicles
  • Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk tweeted in response that ESG is a scam, considering Exxon Mobil is still listed in the S&P 500 ESG Index top 10
Pouncing on investors’ interest in environmentally friendly, sustainable investing, the S&P 500 ESG Index was launched in 2019.1 ESG, or environmental, social and governance, funds are supposed to be those focused on companies with strong environmental ethics and responsibility, but further investigation reveals rampant greenwashing has occurred, and many ESG-labeled funds are far from “sustainable.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been scrutinizing ESG funds for years, as their popularity soared. While funds focused on socially responsible investing were valued at $2.83 billion in 2015, this grew to $17.67 billion by 2019, when Alex Bernhardt, U.S. head of responsible investments at investment consultant Mercer, told The Wall Street Journal, “In every asset class, in every region, ESG product development is the thing right now.”2

Fast-forward to 2022, and the SEC is cracking down on ESG labels, with multiple investigations launched into ESG greenwashing on Wall Street by multiple mega-banks. Globally, $41 trillion are expected to flow into ESG funds in 2022.3

Murky Guidelines Mire ESG Label Credibility
A glaring problem with ESG labels is the lack of regulations that define what qualifies as a company that’s environmentally or socially responsible. In 2019, the SEC began sending letters to asset managers asking for what models were used to determine ESG investments.

In 2019, Betty Moy Huber, co-head of law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP’s environmental, social and corporate governance group, told The Wall Street Journal, “This is a relatively new area. Now the SEC is saying, ‘Wait, how do you know these are ESG products and that you don’t have a fossil fuel company with known, poor ESG performance in there?’”4

S&P and MSCI have established their own ratings system for ESG labels, with controversial methodologies. For instance, ESG funds may hold up to 20% of their shares in non-ESG stocks, such that “fossil fuel-free” funds may actually hold fossil fuel companies.5

“As a result, many “ESG” funds still hold major emitters like ExxonMobil, and are only marginally less carbon-intensive than the market average,” Quartz reported.6 It wasn’t until May 2022 that the SEC announced plans to develop stricter standards for ESG labels.7

SEC Goes After Goldman Sachs
After an investigation into greenwashing by Deutsche Bank in 2021 — that led to a raid of the bank’s offices in Germany by German authorities8 — and a $1.5 million fine to BNY Mellon for “misstatements and omissions about ESG considerations,” the SEC is now going after Goldman Sachs.

In the BNY Mellon case, one ESG fund included 185 investments, 67 of which had no ESG-quality score when the security was purchased, but shareholders were told its strategy included “identifying and considering the environmental, social and governance risks, opportunities and issues throughout the research process.”9 But in the case of Goldman, as reported by Quartz:10
“The Goldman investigation is focused on mutual funds. Because there is no legal standard for ESG definitions, the SEC will determine whether the bank’s actual methods for managing ESG funds differ from what it has disclosed to investors, not whether the funds are really green or not.”
Goldman manages at least four ESG or “clean energy” funds and renamed its Blue Chip Fund the U.S. Equity ESG Fund in June 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal:11
“Goldman says in regulatory documents that its ESG fund aims to keep 80% of its net assets in stocks issued by companies that meet the fund manager’s criteria. They exclude companies that earn most of their revenue from selling alcohol, tobacco, weapons, coal, oil and gas, and some other products.
Goldman says holdings in the U.S. Equity ESG Fund undergo an ESG analysis but reserves the right to invest in some companies without such a screening. It can also invest up to 20% of its net assets in stocks that deviate from its ESG standards.”
When the SEC first began scrutinizing ESG labels, it was done via compliance examiners, who would forward any concerns to SEC enforcement attorneys. An SEC enforcement task force was launched in 2021 to further investigate greenwashing related to ESG investing products, and the Goldman investigation could result in formal enforcement action.12

‘The World’s Largest Ponzi Scheme’
BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink, who has close ties to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) head Klaus Schwab, and joined WEF’s board in 2019, stated in October 2021, “Short-term policies related to environmentalism in terms of restricting supply of hydrocarbons has created energy inflation, and we’re going to be living with that for some time … We’re in a new regime.”13

On Twitter, Russ Greene wrote, “ESG advocates have sought to portray as a conspiracy theory the link between ESG and higher oil and gas prices, but if so it’s one that’s shared by many of the most successful figures in finance, including ESG investors,” referring to Blackstone cofounder, billionaire Steve Schwarzman, who has said that a focus on ESG is “driving a credit crunch for oil and gas companies.”14

However, investment firm BlackRock has more power than most governments on Earth, and it also controls the Federal Reserve, mega-banks like Goldman Sachs and the WEF’s Great Reset, according to F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant and lecturer who holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.15

BlackRock also has ties to Blackstone — the largest landlord in the U.S. as well as the largest real estate company worldwide, with a portfolio worth $325 billion16 — as Schwarzman and Fink started out in business together.17 BlackRock, Engdahl believes, may control the world’s economic future, in part via ESG investing:18
“Fink … now stands positioned to use the huge weight of BlackRock to create what is potentially, if it doesn’t collapse before, the world’s largest Ponzi scam, ESG [Environment, Social values and Governance] corporate investing. Fink with $9 trillion to leverage is pushing the greatest shift of capital in history into a scam known as ESG Investing.
The UN ‘sustainable economy’ agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked ‘woke’ companies, and away from the ‘not woke’ such as oil and gas companies or coal.
BlackRock since 2018 has been in the forefront to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG — Environment, Social values and Governance.
For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term.
How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO.
… Oil companies like ExxonMobil or coal companies no matter how clear are doomed as Fink and friends now promote their financial Great Reset or Green New Deal.”
Elon Musk Calls ESG a ‘Scam’
In May 2022, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index, despite its focus on creating environmentally conscious vehicles. Incidents of racial discrimination at a company factory were cited as one factor in its removal, and Tesla was said to be “ineligible for index inclusion due to its low S&P DJI ESG Score, which fell in the bottom 25% of its global GICS® industry group peers.”19

Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk tweeted in response “@SPGlobalRatings has lost their integrity [sic],” considering Exxon Mobil is still listed in the S&P 500 ESG Index top 10.20 Musk tweeted:21
“Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance (ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didn’t make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.”
What’s more, TIME reported, “According to Bloomberg, the world’s largest ESG-focused exchange-traded fund has almost invested 3.1% of its assets in the oil and gas sector …”22

A New System of Control Via Allocation of Resources
ESG is one tactic being used to push the “green” agenda forward. While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately this isn’t about the environment — it’s all about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population can be controlled through the allocation of those resources, including energy. As explained in an anonymous Winter Oak article:23
“Under such an economic construct, asset holding conglomerates can redirect the flow of global capital by aligning investments with the UN’s SDGs [sustainable development goals] and configuring them as Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) compliant so that new international markets can be built on the disaster and misery of potentially hundreds of millions of people reeling from the economic collapse caused by war.
Therefore, the war offers a huge impetus for the governments pushing the reset to actively pursue energy independence, shape markets towards ‘green and inclusive growth’ and eventually move populations towards a cap-and-trade system, otherwise known as a carbon credit economy.
This will centralize power in the hands of stakeholder capitalists under the benevolent guise of reinventing capitalism through fairer and greener means, using deceptive slogans like ‘Build Back Better’ without sacrificing the perpetual growth imperative of capitalism.”
The WEF also discusses ESG as part of its “sustainable” resource-based economic system:24
“Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services. Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.
When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy.”
But it’s important to be aware of the downside of reliance on suspect labels like ESG, which could ultimately tie large parts of the global population, including small farmers, to a new form of data slavery. According to one of Navdanya’s reports:25
“A global ‘seal’ of approval based on fake science, fake economics of maximizing profits through extraction will create new data slavery for farmers. Instead of using their own heads and cocreating with the Earth, they will be forced to buy ‘Big Data.’ Instead of obeying the laws of Mother Earth, they will be forced to obey algorithms created by Big Tech and Big Ag.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Biden-1200x630.jpg

Gaslighting Tweet of the Decade: Delusional Dictator Biden Picks a New Target to Blame for Gas Price Crisis

By J.D. Rucker • Jul. 2, 2022

The Biden regime has blamed Vladimir Putin, oil companies, Donald Trump, Covid-19, and Vladimir Putin again for the skyrocketing gas prices. None of it stuck. The people blame the regime and rightfully so. But instead of finally coming out and acknowledging that their own failures and policies (one in the same) caused this problem, they’ve chosen a new target upon which to attempt to gaslight the nation.

They decided to do it on social media, which is about as ludicrous as it sounds. People can respond, and their responses have been some of the most brutal this failed regime has seen.

Here’s the Tweet:
Gas station owners across the country have struggled through the Biden economy as much if not more than most small businesses. They are conscious of the rising costs of fuel and have cut the minuscule profits they used to get to non-existent levels. Some stations have gone in the red with their gas prices in hopes of making it back on other purchases. THESE are the people the Biden regime has decided to target.

[Twitter] Responses were ugly: [I am not posting screen shots of tweets due to software photo limits]

Shay Patrick Cormac: “They are charging a price that reflects what they are paying for gas. The US government makes more on each gallon of gas sold than the oil companies do.”
Catturd: “OMG … this idiot is unreal.”
Greg: “Thank you for this tweet mr president. My local gas stations all dropped their prices $2 instantly because they had your tweet notifications on”
David Giglio: “My message to the @POTUS running the country who cancelled domestic pipelines, drilling, and oil leases on Day 1 is simple: Stop gaslighting the American people with lies & stop putting America Last. And do it now.
Me (I had to get in on the action): “Somebody in the regime thought it was a good idea to play tough guy against small business owners in a collapsing economy that the regime created. BRILLIANT!”
Helaine Olen: “I’m sorry, but this is just sad.”
Libertarian Party: “You know as well as everyone that the Federal Reserve actually sets the prices – through rampant inflation. When 40% of the dollars in the world was printed in one year, inflation sets in and prices skyrocket. Just yesterday you were blaming Putin. We see through your scam.”
Dan Lyman: “Spoken like a communist dictator”
Jon Root: “Gas prices rose the moment you signed this executive order on day 1, Mr. President… The problem isn’t Russia, Russia, Russia. It’s you, you, you.”
The Last Refuge: “You do know the E15 mandate made gas more expensive right? The EPA enforces the biofuel standard by requiring refineries to submit purchase credits (known as Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs) to the EPA proving the purchases. The price of those RINs is in the gas.”
Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch may have nailed the most important aspect of this Tweet, posting: “Fact check: This person has no lawful authority to threaten or order a gas station to set a price. This tweet is an abuse of power.”
This regime will try anything and everything at this point. They will NEVER admit they made a single mistake. They will NEVER do what it takes to solve the problems they created. This is the worst administration in modern history, and it isn’t even close.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

JPMorgan Issues Bombshell Warning about Where Oil Prices Are Headed

8cba3174a095e11a787c2b1268dc9916
Frank BergmanJuly 2, 20223 Comments
jp-morgan-jamie-dimon-oil-price-prediction.jpg


American multinational investment bank JPMorgan Chase & Co. has issued a bombshell warning about where it predicts oil prices could be heading.

JPMorgan analysts predict that the price of oil could soon reach “stratospheric” levels that would be catastrophic to the economy.

The price of a barrel of oil currently hovers around $111.

However, analysts at JP Morgan Chase are warning it could more than triple to a staggering $380 if Russia decides to cut its output.

With the price of a gallon of gas in America now topping $5 in many areas, such a dramatic increase in oil costs would be devastating to the economy.

“It is likely that the government could retaliate by cutting output as a way to inflict pain on the West,” analysts wrote.

“The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side.”

The West is putting the squeeze on Moscow over its war in Ukraine, but Russia, which supplies much of Europe with oil for heating and gasoline, could easily flip the script by cutting output.

Cutting production by 3 million barrels a day would push global prices to $190, analyst Natasha Kaneva wrote.

Kaneva warns that the worst-case scenario of a 5-million-per-day cut would send the price of a single barrel to $380.

Western countries are dependent on Russia’s oil, yet want to limit how profitable production is to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Group of Seven (G-7) leading industrial nations are trying to hammer out a complex plan to cap the price Russia can fetch from oil sales to non-G-7 countries.

The move is part of a menu of sanctions aimed at Russia.

“The goal here is to starve Russia — starve Putin of his main source of cash and force down the price of Russian oil to help blunt the impact of Putin’s war at the pump,” a senior Biden administration official told reporters.

“The dual objectives of G7 leaders have been to take direct aim at Putin’s revenues, particularly through energy, but also to minimize the spillovers and the impact on the G7 economies and the rest of the world.”

However, according to JPMorgan’s experts, such a cap could end up leaving Putin with more leverage than he currently has.

“The most obvious and likely risk with a price cap is that Russia might choose not to participate and instead retaliate by reducing exports,” the analysts wrote.

Democrat President Joe Biden acknowledged earlier this week that oil prices are on a rapid upward trajectory.

When asked how long Americans should expect to pay high prices, he offered little room for optimism.

“As long as it takes so Russia cannot in fact defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine,” Biden told reporters in Europe Thursday.

“This is a critical, critical position for the world.

“Here we are. Why do we have NATO?

“I told Putin that in fact, if he were to move, we would move to strengthen NATO.

“We would move to strengthen NATO across the board.”

On Thursday, White House Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese told CNN that American families must take the high price of gasoline in stride.

“This is about the future of the liberal world order and we have to stand firm,” he said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Revolution In The Netherlands? Farmers Plan July 4th Protests, Supported By Huge Crowds (VIDEO)

By ProTrumpNews Staff
Published July 2, 2022 at 1:20pm

Screenshot-881.jpg

Dutch farmers are expanding their protests against the government’s climate agenda.
Dutch lawmakers were voting on proposals that would likely lead to many farmers being forced to stop farming.

The ruling coalition called for cutting emissions of pollutants by 50% by 2030, this would target the livestock of farmers.

ABC News reported:

Farmers protested around the Netherlands as lawmakers voted Tuesday on proposals to slash emissions of damaging pollutants, a plan that will likely force farmers to cut their livestock herds or stop work altogether.

The ruling coalition wants to cut emissions of pollutants, predominantly nitrogen oxide and ammonia, by 50% nationwide by 2030. Ministers call the proposal an “unavoidable transition” that aims to improve air, land and water quality.

They warn that farmers will have to adapt or face the prospect of shuttering their businesses.
Dutch Farmers have taken to the street in protest with many showing their support for the farmers.

In some cases, the protests have turned violent.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported:
Farmers protested and rioted in Holland this past week as the government has declared war on livestock farming, setting a goal of reducing nitrogen emissions by 50 percent by 2030, drastically reducing herds, forcing many farmers out of business and cutting back on meat, pork, poultry and dairy food for human consumption. To accomplish this the government expects to reduce by one-third Holland’s 50,000 farms by 2030.

Tuesday night farmers attacked a police car barricade to march on the home of Holland’s Nitrogen and Nature minister where they set off fireworks and burned bales of hay in protest
WATCH:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1542763686426984448
1:00 min

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1542817311773663232
.09 min

They have announced more protests for July 4th as well.

They are attempting to close “distribution centers for food supplies and all major polluters” until the climate policy is changed.

The Epoch Times reported:
Dutch farmers are continuing their demonstrations against a government climate policy that officials expect to end many farmers’ livelihoods, with organizers on Telegram planning July 4 protests they say will “flatten” the whole of the Netherlands.

The message calls on concerned farmers and citizens to organize their own regional actions with the goal of closing all “distribution centers for food supplies and all major polluters” until “the government changes its plans.”

One viral call for a July 4 protest came from a large truckers’ Telegram group, suggesting that some truckers in the Netherlands may find themselves in solidarity with the nation’s agriculturalists.
Have everyday people had enough?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Dutch Farmers’ Protest and the War on Food
Kit Knightly
dutch-farmer-protest-2022.jpg

This week, tens of thousands of farmers have gathered from all across the Netherlands to protest government policies which will reduce the number of livestock in the country by up to a third.

In a typical example of media weasel-wording, the press reports on this all headline something like “Dutch farmers protest emissions targets”, but this is a massive lie by omission.

The government policy being protested is a 25 BILLION Euro investment in “reducing levels of nitrogen pollution” true, but it plans to achieve this by (among other things) “paying some Dutch livestock farmers to relocate or exit the industry”.

In real terms, this ultimately means reducing the number of pigs, chickens and cows by about thirty per cent.

That’s what is being protested here – a deliberately shrinking of the farming sector, impacting the livelihood of thousands of farmers, and the food supply of literally hundreds of millions of people.

THE BIG PICTURE
While the scheme is allegedly about limiting nitrogen and ammonia emissions from urine and manure it’s hard not to see this in the broader context of the ongoing created food crisis.

The Netherlands produces a massive food surplus and is one of the largest exporters of meat in the world and THE largest in Europe. Reducing its output by a third could have huge implications for the global food supply, especially in Western Europe.

Perhaps more troubling is how this could act as a precedent.

This isn’t the first “pay farmers not to farm” scheme launched in the last year – both the UK and US have put such schemes in place – but a government paying to reduce it’s own meat production? That is a first.

That it is (allegedly) being done to “protect the environment” makes it a big warning sign for the future. Denmark, Belgium and Germany are already considering similar policies.

The Western world seems to be enthusiastically embracing quasi-suicidal policies.

I mean, paying farmers to reduce the amount of food they produce…while (notionally) threatened with war…in the midst of a recession…facing record inflation as the cost of living spirals.

Does that really make any sense?

That’s almost as crazy as refusing new oil and gas leases while the cost of petrol is going up.
Indeed, in a world beset by a shortage of fertiliser due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, it would seem almost mad to complain about a manure surplus, let alone try to reduce it.

We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we?

Put it this way – if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?
 

Cacheman

Ultra MAGA!
We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we?

Put it this way – if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?
That say's it all.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Prepare for War, Higher Energy Prices & Significant Civil Unrest -Martin Armstrong
By Greg Hunter On July 2, 2022 In Political Analysis 3 Comments

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com (Saturday Night Post)

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong says, “If my computer had legs, it would hide under my bed.” That’s how bad things are looking for the rest of 2022 and 2023, according to Armstrong’s “Socrates” program that foresees future geopolitical and economic trends and events. Let’s start with war that is already underway with Russia.

Armstrong says, “They wanted war. It’s all been provoked, and it’s intentional. . .”

Armstrong points out, “Ukraine President Zelensky already has hundreds of millions of dollars stashed off-shore. He’s been offered a golden parachute, and he’s willing to fight until the last Ukrainian dies on the battlefield. This is nothing more than a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and they know that. Russia knows Ukraine is not the enemy. It is the United States.”

How close are we to all-out war with the U.S. directly involved against Russia? Armstrong says, “I can tell you I have a friend whose brother is in the U.S. military here, and they have already been told to prepare for war. The U.S. is shipping more troops over to Europe. They are not shipping troops to Ukraine, but to NATO countries. They want war.”

So, are higher energy prices coming? Armstrong says, “They need to get gas prices to $10 a gallon so people will drive less, and that way they can get their electric cars. This is the insanity of what is going on in Washington.”

One rumor that Armstrong is hearing from his Washington D.C. sources is talk about granting citizenship to illegal aliens flooding across the southern border with a Presidential Executive Order shortly before the mid-term election in November. That would allow illegals to vote, and that sort of outright cheating could touch off violence. Armstrong says, “I am concerned if they pull that and they grant all these people citizenship. He’s been flying them in and dropping them off in the middle of the night, why are they doing that? It is to change the election. . . . I am concerned you would be talking about civil unrest going into 2023 that is going to be significant. You have already divided the country between blue and red to begin with. They have misrepresented the abortion thing. Now, with the aliens, how much more are we going to take of this?”

Armstrong talks about the dumbest world leaders he has ever seen. He also talks about Soros and defund the police. Armstrong tells us the importance of silver and cash if there is a total break down on the financial system, the disease cycle that started in 2022 and the decline of the global population that will keep falling until 2040.

In closing, Armstrong says, “The higher the gasoline prices, the greater the economic stress and not just in the U.S and EU, I am talking everywhere. This is why they need war. They need the great distraction, and that is manufacturing World War III.”

There is much more in the 1-hour and 7-minute interview.

Prepare for War, Higher Energy Prices & Significant Civil Unrest -Martin Armstrong 1:07:39 min

Prepare for War, Higher Energy Prices & Significant Civil Unrest -Martin Armstrong
Greg Hunter's USAWatchdog.com Published July 2, 2022
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Mike Pompeo's Revealing Hudson Institute Speech

SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 01:30 AM
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via CaitlinJohnstone.com,

Former CIA director and secretary of state Mike Pompeo gave a speech at the Hudson Institute last week that’s probably worth taking a look at just because of how much it reveals about the nature of the US empire and the corrupt institutions which influence its policies.



Pompeo is serving as a “Distinguished Fellow” at the Hudson Institute while he waits for the revolving door of the DC swamp to rotate him back into a federal government position.

The Hudson Institute is a neoconservative think tank which has a high degree of overlap with the infamous Project for the New American Century and its lineup of Iraq war architects, and spends a lot of its time manufacturing Beltway support for hawkish agendas against Iran. It was founded in 1961 with the help of a cold warrior named Herman Kahn, whose enthusiastic support for the idea that the US can win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was reportedly an inspiration for the movie Dr Strangelove.

A think tank is an institution where academics are paid by the worst people in the world to come up with explanations for why it would be good and smart to do something evil and stupid, which are then pitched at key points of influence in the media and the government. “Think tank” is a good and accurate label for these institutions, because they are dedicated to controlling what people think, and because they are artificial enclosures for slimy creatures.

View: https://youtu.be/tVpRCfUaZG8
58:13 min

Pompeo’s speech is one long rimjob for the military-industrial complex which indirectly employs him. He repeatedly sings the praises of the weapons that are being poured into Ukraine, two of them by name: the Patriot missile built by Raytheon and the Javelin missile built jointly by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, both of whom happen to be major funders of the Hudson Institute. He repeatedly decries the “disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan,” and excoriates the Biden administration for failing to control the world’s fossil fuel resources aggressively enough in its efforts to “prostrate itself to radicals.”

Pompeo, easily ranked among the most fanatical imperialists on the entire planet, hilariously says that “China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a form of imperialism.” He decries a “genocide” in Xinjiang and repeatedly implies that China deliberately unleashed Covid-19 upon the world, calling it “the global pandemic induced by China.” He repeatedly claims that Vladimir Putin is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union.

Along with praise for NATO and for the various anti-China alliances in the Indo-Pacific, Pompeo names “Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan” as “the three lighthouses for liberty” which those alliances must work to support militarily. You will notice that those three “lighthouses” just so happen to be the hottest points of geostrategic conflict with the top three opponents of the US empire: Russia, Iran, and China.

But there are a couple of things Pompeo says which have some real meat on them.
“By aiding Ukraine, we undermined the creation of a Russian-Chinese axis bent on exerting military and economic hegemony in Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East,” Pompeo says.
“We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China,” he later adds. “To do that, we have to strengthen NATO, and we see that nothing hinders Finland and Sweden’s entry into that organization.”
To stop a "Pan-Eurasian colossus" from forming, @mikepompeo stresses the importance of #Finland and #Sweden joining @NATO as well as #Russia's resulting increase in military capability if they are denied entry. pic.twitter.com/er0BKvcjEK
— Hudson Institute (@HudsonInstitute) June 29, 2022
That’s all the major international news stories of today are ultimately about, right there.

Underlying all the smaller news stories about conflicts with nations like Russia, China and Iran, there’s one continuous story about the US power alliance trying to secure planetary domination by relentlessly working to subvert any nation which refuses to align with it, and about the nations who oppose that campaign working against it with steadily increasing intimacy.

This is all the Russia hysteria from 2016 onward has been about. This is all the phony, hypocritical hand-wringing about Taiwan, Xinjiang and Hong Kong have been about. This is all the staged histrionics about human rights in Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba have been about. It’s all been about manufacturing international consent for an increasingly dangerous campaign to secure unipolar global hegemony at any cost.

It’s worth calling this to mind, as NATO for the first time designates China a threat due to its alignment with Russia and as NATO’s secretary-general admits that NATO has been preparing for a conflict with Russia since 2014. It is worth calling to mind the fact that the US has had a policy in place since the fall of the Soviet Union to prevent the rise of any rival superpower to deny any serious challenge to its planetary domination. It is worth calling to mind that in 1997 the precursor to the US Space Force committed to working toward “full spectrum dominance,” meaning military control over land, sea, air, and space.
US unipolar hegemony.

They are right that China challenges NATO interests: the NATO cartel's existential goal of enforcing a US global dictatorship, one that imposes neoliberalism on the planet, destroying any country that proposes a state-led, people-centered economic model https://t.co/y5HCWAGkiL
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 30, 2022
People like to talk about secret conspiracies by shadowy cabals to establish a one-world government, but what is by far the most tangible and imminent global domination agenda has been orchestrated right out in the open. The US government has long sought to unite the world under a single power structure, no matter how much violence and devastation it needs to inflict upon humanity and no matter how much world-threatening nuclear brinkmanship it needs to engage in to do so.

This is the US empire which corrupt psychopaths like Mike Pompeo support. A power structure which wages nonstop wars in order to keep the peace, which continually oppresses populations around the world in order to protect freedom, and which risks nuclear war with increasingly reckless aggression to in order save the world.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

VIDEO: Dutch farmers spray manure on town hall in protest of climate plans

To meet new climate goals, farmers will be forced out of business.

Peter Imanuelsen
Jul 1



In their infinite wisdom, the government of the Netherlands wants to impose new climate goals of reducing nitrogen output by 2030, which will force farmers out of business.

The Netherlands had even appointed a new Minister for Nature and Nitrogen! The minister, Christianne van der Wal has practically said that some farmers will have to give up their farms.

The target is designed to comply with EU rules on reducing nitrogen pollution. In order to meet the goals, farmers will have to downsize their businesses or shut down.

And the farmers are not happy about it. Last week some 40 000 farmers took to a mass protest.

Did you hear about any of this on the news? I bet you probably did not...

Farmers have taken to the highways, setting up blockades.

Twitter avatar for @RadioGenova RadioGenova @RadioGenova
Very angry Dutch farmers block border between Holland and Germany. Harsh protests in many Dutch cities after politicians' decision to closes dozens of farms and cattle ranches to reduce nitrogen by 30% - 70% to comply with EU regulations on nitrogen pollution.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1542391653545148417/pu/vid/1280x720/QDII-y5PFafzp1HP.mp4?tag=12 .20 min

Farmers also sprayed manure at the local town hall in Lochem.
Twitter avatar for @Kees71234 Kees71 @Kees71234
Ondertussen bij het gemeentehuis in Lochem: boeren verspreiden mest voor de deur van het gemeentehuis!

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1541490243479773186/pu/vid/320x580/3rJCC3rBJZCXAfis.mp4?tag=12 1:02 min

So let me get this straight. We are already looking at a worldwide food crisis as a result of skyrocketing fertilizer prices and the war in Ukraine (as Russia and Ukraine are major grain exporters, and that is now coming to a standstill).

The protests have of course been condemned by the politicians, but according to a poll it seems like many people support the farmers.

The political party Farmer-Citizen Movement is ranking high in the polls. In fact, they are now the second largest party in the Netherlands!

Twitter avatar for @mauricedehond Maurice de Hond @mauricedehond
Interessante overeenkomsten tussen opmars BBB nu en die van FVD exact vier jaar geleden, die leidde tot een uitslag bij #PS2019 waarbij de FVD groter werd dan de VVD.
mdhnd.nl/st2606
Image

June 26th 2022

Just today in Norway several large food producers implemented massive price increases on food. For example the price of Pepsi Max went up by over 30%. With inflation and skyrocketing fuel prices things are not looking better for next year.

We will likely see even more expensive food next year, and unfortunately probably famines in some parts of the world.

So what does the genius politicians in Europe do? They want to shut down farms because of climate change of course! That will surely help!

The cows are farting too much! That's not a joke by the way. In New Zealand they want to implement a tax on cow farts and burps!

I really don't get this. We are facing a food crisis and they want to shut down farms in the name of climate change?

I guess they really want you to eat the bugs and be happy. They are working on making meat so expensive that the common people won't be able to afford it.

Are you enjoying The Great Reset?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Rising Interest Rates May Blow Up the Federal Budget

The different levers they can pull and dials they can turn give the Fed a whole lot of power over our financial future. When trying to stop one thing, they can cause another. Here's an example.

1 hr ago

Article by Jeff Deist from Mises cross-posted with permission.
In fiscal year 2020, at the height of covid stimulus mania, Congress managed to spend nearly twice what the federal government raised in taxes.

Yet in 2021, with Treasury debt piled sky high and spilling over $30 trillion, Congress was able to service this gargantuan obligation with interest payments of less than $400 billion. The total interest expense of $392 billion for the year represented only about 6 percent of the roughly $6.8 trillion in federal outlays.

How is this possible? In short: very low interest rates. In fact, the average weighted rate across all outstanding Treasury debt in 2021 was well below 2 percent. As the chart below shows, even dramatically rising federal debt in recent years did not much hike Congress's debt service burden.



This is an exceedingly happy arrangement for Congress. Debt is always more popular than taxes for the same reason starting a diet tomorrow is more popular than starting today. Austerity does not sell when it comes to retail politics; spending trillions today while merely adding to what seems like a nebulous, faraway debt definitely does. And American lawmakers are uniquely fortunate in this regard. As French finance minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing infamously announced in the 1960s, the Bretton Woods monetary system created "America's exorbitant privilege." He understood how the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency would allow America to effectively export inflation to its hapless trading partners while maintaining cheap imports at home. But he may not have fully grasped the political privilege which would accrue to Congress.

Is this privilege sustainable? That may well be the most important political question of the twenty-first century. As Nick Giambruno explains, our forty-year experiment in relentlessly lower interest rates may soon end regardless of what the Fed does. Markets and geopolitics are powerful forces. Inflation, huge projected deficits, economic sanctions on Russia, oil disruptions, and a diminished appetite around the world for propping up Uncle Sam forever all exert upward pressure on Treasury rates. The Fed proved it can and will serve as market maker and backstop for US Treasurys, with its sordid QE (quantitative easing) bond purchases after the Great Recession and its deranged response to covid. But it cannot force investors, even crony institutional investors, to buy American bond debt at rates well below inflation forever.

This is not hypothetical; Giambruno notes how certain Treasury yields quietly rose five time just since the absolute lows of 2020.

If Treasury rates continue to rise, and rise precipitously, the effects on congressional budgeting will be immediate and severe. Even if we laughably assume total federal debt remains static at around $23.8 trillion (the publicly held portion of the $30 trillion), interest rates of merely 2 or 3 percent will cause interest expense to rise considerably. Average weighted rates of only 5 percent would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion every year. Historically, average rates of 7 percent swell that number to more than $1.5 trillion. Rates of 10 percent—hardly unthinkable, given the Paul Volcker era of the late seventies and early eighties—would cause debt service to explode to over $2.3 trillion.

Interest on Debt

Again, even 5 percent average rates would cause debt service to become the single biggest annual expenditure for Congress—ahead of Social Security ($1.2 trillion), Medicare ($826 billion), and the Department of Defense ($704 billion). The starting point for budget makers every year would be an interest expense totaling nearly half of realistic tax revenue. And keep in mind that these figures are for the existing federal debt, exclusive of the vast future deficits that are almost dead certain to happen. Seniors like entitlements, and the percentage of Americans over sixty-five is set to double by 2050. Republicans and Democrats like war, busy as they are installing more US troops in Poland and envisioning new aircraft carriers to patrol the Mediterranean (yes) and the South China Sea. What happens when the interest-bearing debt is $40 or $50 or $60 trillion?

At some point, given the sheer and utter profligacy of Congress, will the world demand junk bond rates to loan America another dime? Everyone knows the US will never pay its debts except nominally through inflation; everyone knows off–balance sheet entitlement promises cannot be kept in any meaningful way. Spendthrifts get cut off eventually, even those with powerful militaries and hegemonic currencies. This may not happen soon, if for no other reason than that the rest of the world holds trillions of US dollars too. But if American exceptionalism goes the way of the British Empire, this will be the reason why.

During the incontinent George W. Bush administration, Dick Cheney infamously chided Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill with the assertion "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." We see the same deluded thinking today among proponents of modern monetary theory, the idea that sovereign governments can command resources at will. This mentality pervades Congress, which in turn is rewarded by voters who want wars and welfare today without thought to future generations. They choose to believe the Cheneys and the MMTers, who tell them deficits and debt are essentially costless.

But debt and deficits do matter. We are about to find out how much they matter. The good news, and it is very good news, is that Americans soon may enjoy the benefits of compounding interest on savings (our grandparents can explain this to us). Civilization begins and ends with capital accumulation, the very thing politics and central banks attack with impunity. It is beyond time to reward savers and punish Congress.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

33 Problems With Media In One Chart

SATURDAY, JUL 02, 2022 - 08:00 PM

One of the hallmarks of democratic society is a healthy, free-flowing media ecosystem.
In times past, that media ecosystem would include various mass media outlets, from newspapers to cable TV networks. Today, the internet and social media platforms have greatly expanded the scope and reach of communication within society.

Of course, journalism plays a key role within that ecosystem. High quality journalism and the unprecedented transparency of social media keeps power structures in check—and sometimes, these forces can drive genuine societal change. Reporters bring us news from the front lines of conflict, and uncover hard truths through investigative journalism.

That said, as Visual Capitalist's Nick Routley and Carmen Ang detail below, these positive impacts are sometimes overshadowed by harmful practices and negative externalities occurring in the media ecosystem.

The graphic above is an attempt to catalog problems within the media ecosystem as a basis for discussion. Many of the problems are easy to understand once they’re identified. However, in some cases, there is an interplay between these issues that is worth digging into. Below are a few of those instances.



Explicit Bias vs. Implicit Bias
Broadly speaking, bias in media breaks down into two types: explicit and implicit.

Publishers with explicit biases will overtly dictate the types of stories that are covered in their publications and control the framing of those stories. They usually have a political or ideological leaning, and these outlets will use narrative fallacies or false balance in an effort to push their own agenda.

Unintentional filtering or skewing of information is referred to as implicit bias, and this can manifest in a few different ways. For example, a publication may turn a blind eye to a topic or issue because it would paint an advertiser in a bad light. These are called no fly zones, and given the financial struggles of the news industry, these no fly zones are becoming increasingly treacherous territory.

Misinformation vs. Disinformation
Both of these terms imply that information being shared is not factually sound. The key difference is that misinformation is unintentional, and disinformation is deliberately created to deceive people.

Fake news stories, and concepts like deepfakes, fall into the latter category. We broke down the entire spectrum of fake news and how to spot it, in a previous infographic.

Simplify, Simplify
Mass media and social feeds are the ultimate Darwinistic scenario for ideas.

Through social media, stories are shared widely by many participants, and the most compelling framing usually wins out. More often than not, it’s the pithy, provocative posts that spread the furthest. This process strips context away from an idea, potentially warping its meaning.

Video clips shared on social platforms are a prime example of context stripping in action. An (often shocking) event occurs, and it generates a massive amount of discussion despite the complete lack of context.

This unintentionally encourages viewers to stereotype the persons in the video and bring our own preconceived ideas to the table to help fill in the gaps.

Members of the media are also looking for punchy story angles to capture attention and prove the point they’re making in an article. This can lead to cherrypicking facts and ideas.

Cherrypicking is especially problematic because the facts are often correct, so they make sense at face value, however, they lack important context.

Simplified models of the world make for compelling narratives, like good-vs-evil, but situations are often far more complex than what meets the eye.

The News Media Squeeze
It’s no secret that journalism is facing lean times. Newsrooms are operating with much smaller teams and budgets, and one result is ‘churnalism’. This term refers to the practice of publishing articles directly from wire services and public relations releases.

Churnalism not only replaces more rigorous forms of reporting—but also acts as an avenue for advertising and propaganda that is harder to distinguish from the news.

The increased sense of urgency to drive revenue is causing other problems as well. High-quality content is increasingly being hidden behind paywalls.

The end result is a two-tiered system, with subscribers receiving thoughtful, high-quality news, and everyone else accessing shallow or sensationalized content. That everyone else isn’t just people with lower incomes, it also largely includes younger people. The average age of today’s paid news subscriber is 50 years old, raising questions about the future of the subscription business model.

For outlets that rely on advertising, desperate times have called for desperate measures. User experience has taken a backseat to ad impressions, with ad clutter (e.g. auto-play videos, pop-ups, and prompts) interrupting content at every turn. Meanwhile, in the background, third-party trackers are still watching your every digital move, despite all the privacy opt-in prompts.

How Can We Fix the Problems with Media?
With great influence comes great responsibility. There is no easy fix to the issues that plague news and social media. But the first step is identifying these issues, and talking about them.

The more media literate we collectively become, the better equipped we will be to reform these broken systems, and push for accuracy and transparency in the communication channels that bind society together.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Massive Implications, Saudi Arabia in Discussion to Join BRICS Coalition – The Outcome Would be Global Energy and Economic Cleaving

July 2, 2022 | sundance | 422 Comments

It is very curious timing in this article from Newsweek, containing massive geopolitical implications, using identified Saudi Arabia sources, would come in advance of Joe Biden’s visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Is this strategic geopolitical pressure from Saudi leader Mohamed Bin Salman (MbS) ahead of the meeting with Biden; or is this a genuine possibility that looms as likely? If the former, then Joe Biden is being geopolitically slow roasted by Saudi Arabia for his previous disparagements and ideological hypocrisy in his visit. If it is the latter, well, then the tectonic plates of international trade, banking and economics are about to shift directly under our American feet.

Saudi-Arabia-Join-BRICS-1.jpg


We have been closely monitoring the signs of a global cleaving around the energy sector taking place. Essentially, western governments’ following the “Build Back Better” climate change agenda which stops using coal, oil and gas to power their economic engine, while the rest of the growing economic world continues using the more efficient and traditional forms of energy to power their economies.

This article from Newsweek is exactly about this dynamic with Saudi Arabia now potentially joining the BRICS team.

NEWSWEEK – Finland and Sweden’s green light to join NATO is set to bring about the U.S.-led Western military alliance’s largest expansion in decades. Meanwhile, the G7, consisting of NATO states and fellow U.S. ally Japan, has adopted a tougher line against Russia and China.

In the East, however, security and economy-focused blocs led by Beijing and Moscow are looking to take on new members of their own, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, two influential Middle Eastern rivals whose interest in shoring up cooperation on this new front could have a significant impact on global geopolitical balance.

The two bodies in question are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. The former was established in 2001 as a six-member political, economic and military coalition including China, Russia and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan before recruiting South Asian nemeses India and Pakistan in 2017, while the latter is a grouping of emerging economic powers originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) upon its inception 2006, and including South Africa in 2010.


Here is the money quote:

[…] “China’s invitation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join the ‘BRICS’ confirms that the Kingdom has a major role in building the new world and became an important and essential player in global trade and economics,” Mohammed al-Hamed, president of the Saudi Elite group in Riyadh, told Newsweek. “Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 is moving forward at a confident and global pace in all fields and sectors.”

[…] “This accession, if Saudi joins it, will balance the world economic system, especially since the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world, and it’s in the G20,” Hamed said. “If it happens, this will support any economic movement and development in the world trade and economy, and record remarkable progress in social and economic aspects as Saudi Arabia should have partnerships with every country in the world.” (read more)


That would essentially be the end of the petrodollar, and -in even more consequential terms- the end of the United States ability to use the weight of the international trade currency to manipulate foreign government. The global economic system would have an alternative. The fracturing of the world, created as an outcome of energy development, would be guaranteed.

Western-Government-map-eu-sanctions.jpg


Keep in mind, in early June Federal reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated, “rapid changes are taking place in the global monetary system that may affect the international role of the dollar.” {LINK}

The western alliance (yellow) would be chasing climate change energy policy to power their economies. The rest of the world (grey) would be using traditional and more efficient energy development. The global cleaving around energy use would be complete.

This is not some grand conspiracy, ‘out there‘ deep geopolitical possibility, or foreboding likelihood as an outcome of short-sighted western emotion. No, this is just a predictable outcome from western created events that pushed specific countries to a natural conclusion based on their best interests.

You can debate the motives of the western leaders who structured the sanctions against Russia, and whether they knew the outcome would happen as a consequence of their effort, but the outcome was never really in doubt. Personally, I believe this outcome is what the west intended. The people inside the World Economic Forum are not stupid – ideological, yes, but not stupid. They knew this global cleaving would happen.

For a deep dive on BRICS, as predicted by CTH, {SEE HERE}. The bottom line is – the 2022 punitive economic and financial sanctions by the western nations’ alliance against Russia was exactly the reason why BRICS assembled in the first place.

Multinational corporations in control of government are what the BRICS assembly foresaw when they first assembled during the Obama administration. When multinational corporations run the policy of western government, there is going to be a problem.

In the bigger picture, the BRICS assembly are essentially leaders who do not want corporations and multinational banks running their government. BRICS leaders want their government running their government; and yes, that means whatever form of government that exists in their nation, even if it is communist.

BRICS leaders are aligned as anti-corporatist. That doesn’t necessarily make those government leaders better stewards, it simply means they want to make the decisions, and they do not want corporations to become more powerful than they are. As a result, if you really boil it down to the common denominator, what you find is the BRICS group are the opposing element to the World Economic Forum assembly.

The BRICS team intend to create an alternative option for all the other nations. An alternative to the current western trade and financial platforms operated on the use of the dollar as a currency. Perhaps many nations will use both financial mechanisms depending on their need.

The objective of the BRICS group is simply to present an alternative trade mechanism that permits them to conduct business regardless of the opinion of the multinational corporations in the ‘western alliance.’

The BRICS team, especially if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Argentina are added creating BRICS+, would indeed be a counterbalance to the control of western trade and finance. This global cleaving is moving from a possibility to a likelihood. If Saudi Arabia joins BRICS the fracture becomes almost certain.

BRICS-XI-Putin-Bolaonaro-Modi-South-Africa.jpg

Joe-Biden-Ukraine-War.jpg
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Sunset in the Salton Sea, seen from Bombay Beach, Calif., on March 15, 2022. (David Swanson/Reuters)
Sunset in the Salton Sea, seen from Bombay Beach, Calif., on March 15, 2022. (David Swanson/Reuters)

BUSINESS & MARKETS
California Approves Lithium Tax Despite Industry’s Warnings

By Reuters
July 2, 2022 Updated: July 2, 2022

California on Thursday approved a plan to tax the electric vehicle battery metal lithium to generate revenue for environmental remediation projects despite industry concerns that it will harm the sector and delay shipments to automakers.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, approved the tax as part of a must-pass state budget on Thursday. The state legislature had signed off on the levy during deliberations on Wednesday night.

The tax is structured as a flat-rate per ton and will go into effect in January. The tax will be reviewed every year, and state officials have agreed to study potentially switching to a percentage-based tax.

The largest American state sits atop giant lithium reserves in its Salton Sea region, east of Los Angles, an area heavily damaged in the 20th century by years of heavy pesticide use from farming. Funds generated from the tax are earmarked in part to cleanup of the area.

Federal officials have praised the area’s start-up lithium industry because it would deploy a geothermal brine process that is more environmentally friendly than open-pit mines and brine evaporation ponds, the two most common existing methods to produce lithium.

Two of the area’s three lithium companies warned the tax would scare off investors and customers. Both said they may leave the state for lithium-rich brine deposits in Utah or Arkansas.

Privately-held Controlled Thermal Resources Ltd. said the tax would force it to miss deadlines to deliver lithium to General Motors Co. by 2024 and Stellantis NV. by 2025.

EnergySource Minerals LLC., also privately held, said it halted discussions with potential financiers and an automaker.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Sunday, July 3, 2022

  • Our Green Energy Future? Australians to be Hit with Shock Electricity Price Rises
Aussie Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Fiddles While Australia's Energy Security Burns. Note this is a satirical photoshopped image.

CLIMATE POLITICSINTERMITTENT WIND AND SOLAR
Our Green Energy Future? Australians to be Hit with Shock Electricity Price Rises

7 hours ago
Eric Worrall

Essay by Eric Worrall
As our new Prime Minister’s grand green energy transformation plan falls flat, ordinary Australians are feeling the pain of politically motivated lack of investment in dispatchable energy infrastructure.

1656850246734.png
Millions of Australians to be hit with energy bill price hikes
Major energy retailers are expected to increase prices as early as Friday. Find out if you’ll be affected here.
Millions of customers across large parts of Australia’s eastern states are about to be hit with huge hikes to power bills as price increases approved by the regulator kick in from Friday.

In May, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) announced it would be raising the default market offer (DMO) – or the price providers are allowed to charge their customers – with the changes coming into effect from July 1.

The hikes mean Queenslanders could see an increase of up to 12.6 per cent, while those in NSW could see up to 18.3 per cent and 9.5 per cent in South Australia.

From August 1, one of the country’s biggest retailers, AGL, will slug NSW electricity customers close to 18 per cent, likely to lead to many households paying annual increase of hundreds of dollars.

The prices of some smaller energy companies are also set to soar after July 1, with ReAmped and LPE increasing their prices by 100 per cent, while Discover Energy will increase by 285 per cent and GloBird by 147 per cent.

Taylor Blackburn from Finder told 7NEWS these smaller companies are hiking their prices in a bid to lose customers.

“We’ve seen a lot of smaller providers actually beg their customers to go somewhere else and to shop around,” he said.

Read more: Millions of Australians to be hit with energy bill price hikes
The price rises are only happening because in the current political environment, nobody is investing in new dispatchable energy capacity. Gas drilling has been all but banned in Eastern states, where the power shortages are occurring. For example in 2021 the Victorian Government added a permanent fracking ban to the State Constitution.

It could all have been so different.

If Australia had an energy friendly political environment which encouraged low cost coal and gas power, we would have had an abundance of capacity which could have helped keep down prices.

Or if we had a significant nuclear power fleet, they would have acted as a counterbalance to the price rises. Nuclear power plants only have to be refuelled every two years, and Australia has a world class abundance of Uranium and Thorium deposits.

Our new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s green energy plans will do nothing to alleviate these economically crippling energy price rises. If you have any doubts about this, I refer you to President Obama’s excellent explanation of why green energy is always more expensive.

View: https://youtu.be/xaLjS22_-6Y
1:03 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

COVID-19 emergency relief? USDA to spend $10.2M to test composting plans to cut fertilizer use

Department also to award $250 million in new grants this summer to promote fertilizer production domestically.

Updated: July 2, 2022 - 11:02pm

The Golden Horseshoe is a weekly designation from Just The News intended to highlight egregious examples of wasteful taxpayer spending by the government. The award is named for the horseshoe-shaped toilet seats for military airplanes that cost the Pentagon a whopping $640 each back in the 1980s.

This week's Golden Horseshoe is awarded to the Department of Agriculture for spending $10.2 million on a new pilot program for the generation of compost to discourage the use of fertilizer while issuing $250 million in grants to increase production of fertilizer domestically.

The USDA's Composting and Food Waste Reduction cooperative agreement pilot program is being funded by President Biden's American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion emergency COVID-19 relief package signed into law in March 2021.

The ARP was intended to fund "vaccinations, provide immediate, direct relief to families bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 crisis, and support struggling communities," according to White House archives.

The new pilot program found by Just The News on the government website Grants.gov is focused on compost, food waste reduction and reducing fertilizer use.

"The purpose of the CFWR program is to enter into cooperative agreements with eligible entities to develop and test strategies for planning and implementing municipal compost plans and food waste reduction plans," according to the grant's accompanying documents. "Projects can be located in all community types including rural, urban and suburban."

Funding will go to eligible entities for activities that will:
  • generate compost
  • increase access to compost for agricultural producers
  • reduce reliance on, and limit the use of, fertilizer
  • improve soil quality
  • encourage waste management and permaculture business development
  • increase rainwater absorption
  • reduce municipal food waste
  • divert food waste from landfills.
A USDA spokesperson said the program aligns with the ARP and will help deal with supply chain issues caused by the pandemic.

"Composting and Food Waste Reduction (CFWR) cooperative agreements assist local governments, school districts, and Native American tribes with projects that include food waste reduction or compost generation plans," the USDA spokesperson told Just The News.

"As the pandemic highlighted, supply chains that are not resilient can result in significant increases in food loss and waste," the spokesperson said. "Addressing food loss is therefore a key component in improving supply chain resiliency, which is directly aligned with the goals of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021."

The program "supports projects that mitigate the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure fewer supply chain disruptions in the future," she added. "The program will create local networks to ensure excess food will be donated or used in other products and will expand local food production by expanding access to compost for agriculture producers.

"Furthermore, reducing food loss and waste and its associated emissions can mitigate climate change, which negatively impacts agriculture and can disrupt food supply chains."

The grant documents encourage eligible entities to focus on equity and environmental justice in their applications. Applicants are "encouraged to align their project proposals to address priorities on environmental justice, racial equity, climate, invest in disadvantaged communities and climate smart agricultural practices."

As this new pilot program is being rolled out and applications are due Sept. 1, the USDA is also awarding hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in grants this summer to promote fertilizer production domestically.

"USDA will make available $250 million through a new grant program this summer to support independent, innovative and sustainable American fertilizer production to supply American farmers," the agency announced in a press statement.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Biden tweets demand for gas stations to 'bring down' prices, gets praised by Chinese state media

President Biden's tweet on gas prices was praised by a Chinese state media official

By Adam Sabes FOXBusiness

President Biden is telling companies that are "running gas stations" to "bring down" their prices because "this is a time of war and global peril."

"My message to the companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump is simple: this is a time of war and global peril," Biden tweeted on Saturday. "Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product. And do it now."

1656850822953.png

His tweet also garnered support from Chinese state media, with Chen Weihua, China Daily EU Bureau Chief, responding that Biden "finally realized that capitalism is all about exploitation."

1656850853914.png

Biden's tweet comes as gas prices are averaging at $4.822 nationwide, which is up over 20 cents from just one month ago.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS OIL AND GAS DRILLING PLANS, GUTTING TRUMP-ERA FRAMEWORK
President Joe Biden

President Biden is telling companies who are "running gas stations" to "bring down" their prices because "this is a time of war and global peril." (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images / Getty Images)

He has often deflected blame for the increase in gas prices to Russian President Vladimir Putin, dubbing it the "Putin's Price Hike," a term used repeatedly by the White House, despite his campaign promise to always take responsibility and not blame others.

This isn't the first time Biden has made a direct plea to "companies running gas stations," saying in a June 22 speech that "these are not normal times."

"So, let’s be honest with one another. My message is simple. To the companies running gas stations and setting those prices at the pump: This is a time of war, global peril, Ukraine. These are not normal times," Biden said. "Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product. Do it now. Do it today. Your customers, the American people, they need relief now."

WHITE HOUSE PUSHES BACK ON CLAIMS BIDEN IS 'VILIFYING' US OIL INDUSTRY: 'THIS ISN'T PERSONAL'
Gas Prices

These are the gas prices at a pump at a Sheetz store in Sewickley, Pa., Monday, March 7, 2022. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar / AP Newsroom)

The plea from Biden follows a failed proposal from the Oval Office to implement a 90-day gas tax holiday, which was dismissed by even Democratic lawmakers as outlandish.

"I don’t know that we have the votes," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., according to E&E news.

"Suspending the primary way that we pay for infrastructure projects on our roads is a shortsighted and inefficient way to provide relief," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.

1656850944700.png

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said the proposal is "short-sighted" and "relies on the cooperation of oil companies to pass on minuscule savings to consumers."

Gas stations actually make very little money per gallon of gas sold. Studies show that gas stations make about 15 cents per gallon before expenses, and roughly 5 cents per gallon once expenses are factored in. They sell gas to draw customers in to purchase snacks, drinks, and other products that bring in higher profits.

States and the federal government tax each gallon of gas at much higher rates than the profits gas stations make at the pump, with California taxing gas at the highest rate in the nation – a little over 59 cents per gallon after the state raised its tax on July 1.
 

Cacheman

Ultra MAGA!



JPMorgan Warns Oil Price about to Triple, Devastate Economy
Jay Greenberg

4 minutes



Top U.S. bank issues warning of 'stratospheric' rise


jpmorgan predicts oil price are set to triple

© press
JPMorgan predicts oil price are set to triple

Top American multinational bank JPMorgan & Chase has warned that oil prices are predicted triple and devastate the U.S. economy.

The price of a barrel of oil now hovers around $111 after already soaring.

However, the price could more than triple to a staggering $380 if Russia decides to cut its output, analysts at JP Morgan Chase are warning.

With the price of a gallon of gas in America now topping $5 in many areas, such a dramatic increase in oil costs would be catastrophic to the economy.

“It is likely that the government could retaliate by cutting output as a way to inflict pain on the West,” analysts wrote.
“The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side.”

The West is putting the squeeze on Moscow over its war in Ukraine, but Russia, which supplies much of Europe with oil for heating and gasoline, could easily flip the script by cutting output.

Cutting production by 3 million barrels a day would push global prices to $190, and a worst-case scenario of a 5-million-per-day cut would send the price of a single barrel to $380, analyst Natasha Kaneva wrote.

Western countries are dependent on Russian oil, yet want to limit how profitable production is to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Group of Seven leading industrial nations is trying to hammer out a complex plan to cap the price Russia can fetch from oil sales to non-G-7 countries as part of a menu of sanctions aimed at Russia.

“The goal here is to starve Russia — starve Putin of his main source of cash and force down the price of Russian oil to help blunt the impact of Putin’s war at the pump,” a senior Biden administration official said.

"The dual objectives of G7 leaders have been to take direct aim at Putin’s revenues, particularly through energy, but also to minimize the spillovers and the impact on the G7 economies and the rest of the world.”

But such a cap could end up leaving Putin with more leverage than he currently has, according to the bank’s experts.

“The most obvious and likely risk with a price cap is that Russia might choose not to participate and instead retaliate by reducing exports,” the analysts wrote.

Joe Biden acknowledged earlier this week that oil prices are on a rapid upward trajectory.

When asked how long Americans should expect to pay high prices, he offered little room for optimism.

“As long as it takes so Russia cannot in fact defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine,” Biden told reporters in Europe Thursday.

"This is a critical, critical position for the world.

"Here we are.

"Why do we have NATO?

"I told Putin that in fact, if he were to move, we would move to strengthen NATO.
"We would move to strengthen NATO across the board.”


White House Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese told CNN Thursday afternoon that American families must take the high price of gasoline in stride.

“This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm,” he said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Oil Price Could Hit "Stratospheric" $380 If Russia Retaliates To G7 Oil Price Cap

SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 11:15 AM

As discussed previously, one of the most notable events of the past week was the decision by G7 leaders "to work" on a price cap for Russian oil as part of efforts to cut Moscow’s revenues.

However, it didn't take long for the same G7 motley crew to realize that they have a major problem on their hands: as JPM's commodity desk notes, given Russia’s strong fiscal position, the country can cut up to 5 mbd of production without excessively hurting its economic interest. Meanwhile, a 5mbd cut would spark a Europe-wide depression, confirming that once again Europe had not even done the simple math.

What about prices? According to JPM, given the high levels of stress in the oil market, a cut of 3.0 mbd could cause global Brent price to jump to $190/bbl, while the most extreme scenario of a 5 mbd slash in production could drive oil price to a stratospheric $380/bbl.

Let's back up: as we noted last week, the stated goal set out by G7 leaders this week is two-pronged:
  1. to limit upward pressure on global oil prices
  2. to curb Russia’s revenues from oil sales.
To achieve those goals, the allies agreed to explore a new mechanism that aims to impose a ceiling on Russian oil prices. The idea behind this price cap is to permit countries that have not imposed import bans to buy Russian oil as long as it is priced at or below a predetermined price. The cap could be enforced via limits on availability of European insurance for Russian oil cargoes as well as shipping services and US finance. While G7 leaders have not indicated where the price cap would be set, it must be lower than the $80/bbl at which Russia’s Urals grade trades today (a $32/bbl discount to Brent) and higher than Russia’s marginal cost of maintaining production levels, estimated at around $40/bbl to ensure Russia’s earnings are reduced while production is maintained.

A $50-60 per barrel price cap would likely serve the G7 goals of reducing oil revenues for Russia while assuring barrels continue to flow. Of course, for the price cap to work, oil importers like India China and Turkey—which have significantly increased their purchases of heavily- discounted Russian grades—would need to agree to participate to access even cheaper oil.

That's the background. Here are the 3 scenarios as to what happens next. They are, as one would expect from any plan conceived by hapless politicians, bad, worse and much worse.

Scenario 1: Russia does not cooperate and retaliates — a 3 mbd cut would likely deliver a $190/bbl oil price
The most obvious and likely risk with a price cap is that Russia would not to participate (which, of course, it won't as why would Putin agree to produce oil at a lower price than clearing) and instead retaliates by reducing exports. In fact, as JPM head commodity strategist Natasha Kaneva notes, Russia had already showed its willingness to withhold supplies of natural gas to EU countries that refused to meet payment demands. Indeed, emboldened by a surging current account surplus, after entirely cutting off the flow of piped gas to the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Finland and Denmark, since the start of June Gazprom has reduced the flow of gas to Italy by 50% and to Germany by 60%—though claiming the latter reductions in June were due to maintenance-related issues.

As a result, the EU as a whole is now receiving 53% less gas from Russia than it averaged before the start of the war. Withholding gas volumes from Europe comes at a personal cost to Russia—as a measure to manage the reduced export-related flows, Russia has had to allow for natural production declines. According to Gazprom, the company will reduce its production by 17 Bcm this year, or 3% of 2021 production. That said, history suggests that there is far more capability for production reductions in Russia. For example, in 2019 Gazprom production was ~500 Bcm, while in 2020 Gazprom production fell to ~453 Bcm. So far in 2022, Gazprom production has been down 20 Bcm yoy, suggesting further declines are likely relative to Gazprom’s current forecast.

Unlike gas, which accounts for about one-fifth of Russia’s budget revenues, oil makes up over half.
Russia’s policymakers will likely address the challenge of the oil price cap from the position of strength, and as JPM concedes, "Russia’s starting fiscal position is strong." Besides, the global oil market has tightened, while the strong balance of payments opens room to accommodate lower export volumes without inflicting too much financing pain. Which brings up the key question: How much oil production can Russia realistically cut without hurting its economic interest?

In answering this question, JPM notes that Russia's fiscal position strong: low deficit, low debt.

Russia’s sovereign balance sheet remains strong even as half of CBR’s reserves were frozen. Last year, Russia’s federal budget recorded a modest surplus of 0.4% of GDP or $7bn, while this year, as things stand, is tracking a modest deficit of less than 1% of GDP. Financing needs are equally low. The National Wellbeing Fund—effectively, a government deposit at the CBR—reached an equivalent of $198bn by May 2022, with $116bn in usable funds. Treasury cash balances exceed ~$85bn. Gross sovereign debt stood at 15.9% of GDP (~$279bn) as of end-2021.



Federal budget revenues, originally budgeted at RUB25tn ($347bn), are tracking about RUB26tn this year ($394bn) as higher oil & gas revenues more than offset the shortfall in non-energy fiscal revenues. If fiscal rule was still operational, Russia would accumulate around $80bn into the sovereign fund this year. Yet, as following the old fiscal rule has become challenging, the authorities decided to use additional oil & gas revenues to increase spending and reduce issuance instead. A new fiscal rule is being debated in the government.



So let's assume the G7 plan is effectuated and a hypothetical $50/bbl price cap on Russian oil was imposed and effective, Russia could lose about $75bn per year in export revenues and about $42bn in budget revenues compared to JPM's base case of an average annual price of around $80/bbl. The impact on budget balance would be smaller, as exchange rate would offset part of the impact.



JPM concludes that the Kremlin would not face big problem financing a deficit of ~$40bn given the large stock of savings and low initial level of debt. The local financial system should be able to absorb additional issuance, especially given the scarcity of available instruments for savings outside of Russia. For example, in 2020, the government raised an equivalent of 4.8% of GDP ($71bn) from the local market.

However, as JPM's commodity team also notes, the Russian government will likely retaliate by cutting output as a way to inflict pain on the West, especially since the tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side, the continued appreciation pressure on the exchange rate would ease, and the strong public finances could absorb the revenue losses without too much difficulty.

As a hypothetical scenario, a cut of 3 mbd from JPM's base case of 9.7mbd output assumed for this year could open up a deficit of $50bn at a $50/bbl price, which could be relatively easily funded by issuing local bonds without stressing the oil fund. Importantly, the imbalance in Russia’s external accounts, which generates excessive inflows of hard currency to the local market, might, ironically, even be considered as a relief.

Then there is the question of too much USDs and EURs to stomach. Russia’s key macro-economic challenge following the imposition of sanctions has been the unsustainable dynamics of the balance of payments, which has resulted in significant appreciation of the exchange rate. Main sanctions-induced developments were the following:
  • First, sanctions against the central bank made it close-to-impossible for the CBR to accumulate reserves. Last year, the CBR accumulated $64bn in reserves, while this year, if the fiscal rule was still operational and domestic crude price averaged ~ $80/bbl (at a big discount to Brent), the CBR would have had to purchase more than $75bn. Today, the CBR is only able to buy gold from local producers (small scale). Policymakers study the feasibility of buying assets of friendly EM countries, but infrastructure constraints, closed capital accounts, and lack of depth of EM markets will likely make the rollout of EM-buying slow and lacking scale in the near term.
  • Second, sanctions and, more importantly, risks of further financial sanctions (asset freezes) have made residents reluctant to accumulate foreign assets in ‘unfriendly’ countries. In the past, accumulation of foreign assets was traditionally the main channel of private capital outflows, averaging ~$80bn in the past 10 years. This has largely dried up now.
  • Third, trade and logistical restrictions have dramatically affected imports, which, judging by indirect data, halved. Given the strong oil revenues, Russia's 2022 current account surplus to reach ~$170bn this year ($68bn in 1Q22).
The higher current account surplus and the lack of private and public sector capital outflows has meant that the RUB has been the main adjustment valve. This has made Russia’s non-energy exports expensive and uncompetitive. Policymakers have focused their efforts on reviving imports, by stimulating domestic demand and addressing logistical challenges and the CBR has cut policy rate aggressively, while fiscal authorities are contemplating a stimulus of 2-3% of GDP. Obviously, given the nature of sanctions / trade restrictions, reviving imports, especially of investment-related goods, will be hard.

In addition, most of capital controls that were introduced at the height of the crisis have been removed. Also, a couple of quasi-sovereign institutions have had to accumulate foreign assets in recent months, but this is not seen as sustainable or desirable due to sanctions risk. As Russian officials often put it, USDs and EURs have become “toxic”.

Although authorities’ preference would be to increase imports and recycle petrorubles in friendly EMs, this does not look an easy task, especially in the near term. Hence, if the geopolitical situation requires, it now appears more likely that export cuts could be used as leverage / policy tool.

Putting it all together, JPM concludes that "given the high level of stress in the oil market, a cut of 3.0 mbd could cause global Brent price to jump to $190/bbl, while the worst-case scenario, a 5 mbd cut, could drive oil price to a stratospheric $380/bbl."

Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2

* * *
Russia would be able to cut 3 mbd of production, if done temporarily

If Russia decides to make significant cuts to its output, JPM warns that there do not appear to be significant limitations to doing so if done temporarily. In general, halting oil production carries serious risks, depending on how long oil production reductions are needed. Prolonged cutbacks in specific Russian regions could potentially lead to some permanent shut-ins due to operational challenges across an industry with little storage capacity and natural geological constraints in a large number of maturing fields. Currently, Russia has more than 200 thousand active wells that are capital and labor intensive to operate, especially the country’s older wells, which have meager flow rates and poor economics. For some wells, the longer a reservoir remains idled, the higher the chance pressure, water content, and clogging could affect future production. For example, West Siberia—an oil producing region in central Russia that contributes more than half of Russia’s total crude output—is facing permafrost melting and rising associated water levels. A prolonged, large-scale shut-in would mean closing tens of thousands of marginal wells, many of which could never return to profit. For example, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian crude oil production reached a record low of about 6.0 mbd in 1996, down from a record high of 11.4 mbd in 1987.

Only after more than two decades of strong capital investment, equating to hundreds of billions of dollars, was Russia able to restore its crude oil production capacity.

The nearly 2.0 mbd decline in Russia crude oil production in May 2020—or around a fifth of its total output—was the first time since early 1990s that Russia experienced a double-digit collapse in the oil ouput. But despite the unprecedented magnitude and speed of the 2020 cuts— Russia shut in 1.94 mbd of oil production in just one month between April and May 2020—fears that future Russian oil production would be compromised didn’t materialize. As OPEC+ tapered its cuts over the following year and a half, there does not seem to be any indication that Russian oil fields had issues restoring output. Because the Russia-Ukraine war and the resulting sanctions on Russian oil supplies started before Russia had fully restored output—in March 2022, fields where Russia shut in production during 2020 were still producing about 350 kbd less than they were in January 2020—one cannot be certain that those fields would have returned to full output without issue, but the recovery in those fields leading up to April 2022 appears to have been relatively stable with few exceptions. Since there do not seem to have been significant issues in this circumstance, with oil fields at least partially shut in for nearly two years, JPM does not think that, if Russia decided to once again cut output, their ability to restore production would be a significant barrier to doing so, especially if those cuts were only expected to last a few months. Rotating shut-ins between fields or among wells within fields can also help limit the risk of reservoir issues. Simply throttling wells instead of shutting them entirely can also mitigate some of those risks.

Additionally, Russia has tools outside its domestic production to interfere in the global oil supply. About 80% (~1 mbd) of Kazakhstan’s crude exports are shipped from the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal in the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, controlled by Russia. Most of this crude goes to the EU. In Libya, political unrest continues to escalate, and fighting is at levels not seen since 2020, when General Khalifa Haftar, supported by the Russia-linked Wagner Group led his forces to take Tripoli. Libya’s oil production is now likely below 400 kbd after Libya’s National Oil Corp. announced on Thursday that it has declared force majeure on two of its three largest oil export terminals this week, while two other major oil export ports have not shipped any oil in months.

2. Scenario 2: China and India don’t cooperate—the end of the European insurance dominance

History shows that oil sanctions are notoriously leaky, and sanctioned oil supplies almost always find a buyer at the right price, and China and India might not cooperate with the goals of Western governments. The state-run Shipping Corporation of India has in the past carried Iranian oil for state-run Indian refiners when the West first sanctioned Iran in 2012. The Indian government has previously approved coverage from state-run insurers, setting a precedent that it could do so again in the future, should the need arise. Similarly, China’s COSCO vessels have in the past transported Iranian oil in 2013 with Iran commenting that insurance was handled by the “Chinese side.” Similarly, Japan had also guaranteed up to $1 billion of insurance claims for Iranian shipments made in 2012.

Russia and some buyers have already found alternatives to European insurance markets, effectively circumventing European cargo insurance bans. While Russia initially struggled to find a replacement for Western consumers of its oil products and has had to shut in refining capacity, Russian crude oil has not only found new buyers, but waterborne flows of Russian crude are actually higher than they were before the Ukraine crisis. Not only are Russian crude oil deliveries resilient, but there are signs that shipments of bottom-of-barrel oil products like fuel oil are beginning to recover as well (Exhibits 6 & 7). The reality is that with almost 1/5 of global oil production capacity today under some form of sanctions (Iran, Venezuela, Russia), there is no practical way to keep these barrels out of a market that is already exceptionally tight.



The state-controlled Russian National Reinsurance Company (RNRC) is now acting as the main reinsurer of Russian ships, including Sovcomflot’s fleet. In mid-June, Sovcomflot disclosed that it has insured all its cargo ships with Russian insurers and the cover meets international rules, likely enough to keep Russian vessels sailing around the world. To guarantee RNRC has adequate resources to provide reinsurance, Russia’s central bank in March raised RNRC’s capitalization to 300 bn rubles ($5 bn) and hiked its guaranteed capital to 750 billion rubles.

India is also providing safety certification for ships operated by Sovcomflot, enabling oil exports to India and elsewhere. Certification by the Indian Register of Shipping (IRClass)—one of the world’s top classification companies—is the final link after the insurance coverage for gaining access to ports. Chinese insurers are also apparently looking to take on business that was previously covered by their Western counterparts, but they would likely require a sovereign guarantee, which China would provide.

Scenario 3: Russia fully re-routes exports from west to east but loses pricing power, prices stabilize in low-$100s

Left to their own devices, JPMorgan strategist write that energy markets tend to work very efficiently and effectively, and the market adjustment mechanism has kicked in. Record oil product prices and rapidly tightening central banks are cooling consumption so that supply can catch up. In the US, a lackluster driving season so far pushed gasoline demand further below pre-pandemic norm, contributing to an unseasonal build in national stockpiles. As the EU gradually but unequivocally transitions away from Russian energy sources, Russia will continue to re-route its discounted oil flows toward other buyers and global ex-OPEC+ supply growth would have time to grow sufficiently to fill at least some of the Russia-sized hole in global oil supply. US production growth will likely be very strong (especially once the Democrats lose the midterm elections), adding more than 0.7 mbd through the end of 2022, though that growth is expected to halt in 1H 2023 as natural gas infrastructure constraints in the Permian Basin place a temporary cap on oil output. These conditions should be sufficient to stabilize global oil prices in low-$100s in 2H22 and high-$90s in 2023.

Because JPM expects global refinery margins to normalize in 2023 and for refined products prices to fall from current levels, a sustained $100/bbl crude oil price, though still substantially higher than it has been since 2014, should be low enough allow demand to continue to grow. This process of normalization is already under way and is especially visible in other commodities like metals, where there is less policy intervention.



Consequently, Russian revenues from crude oil exports have declined.

 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"Misdirection" Or "Misunderstanding" - Bezos Blasts Biden Blaming Gas Station Owners For High Prices

SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 10:40 AM
Authored by Rick Moran via PJMedia.com,

Do we need to give prospective presidents an economic literacy test?
There’s little doubt that, judging by this tweet, Joe Biden would get an “F.”

1656883148780.png

Wow. Jeff Bezos accused the U.S. president of either deliberately misleading the public or lacking a “basic” understanding of the forces that actually drive prices.

1656883101549.png

Biden apparently doesn’t know that gas station owners are mostly independent small businesses whose razor-thin profit margins make it impossible to willy-nilly lower prices at the pump just because the president orders them to.

1656883051678.png

“You know as well as everyone that the Federal Reserve actually sets the prices—through rampant inflation,” wrote the Libertarian Party’s account.
“When 40 percent of the dollars in the world was printed in one year, inflation sets in and prices skyrocket. Just yesterday you were blaming [Russia]. We see through your scam.”
1656882998500.png

Added California gubernatorial candidate Michael Shellenberger,
“At a time of war, Biden could have leveled with the American people and united the country through an ‘all-of-the-above’ clean energy strategy that included oil & gas. Instead, he has repeatedly lied about the causes of the energy crisis and divided the country.
1656882955203.png

At least the Chinese agree with Biden.

They mocked the American president for proving their point about “capitalist exploitation.” New York Post:
In response to Biden’s demand that oil companies lower their prices, the president was trolled by Chinese state media.
“Now US President finally realized that capitalism is all about exploitation. He didn’t believe this before,” wrote Chen Weihua, EU Bureau Chief and columnist for China Daily, an English language media outlet owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
Biden’s unseemly begging comes on the heels of a White House advisor’s warning that we must suffer these high prices for fuel because “This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm.”



Biden himself suggested Americans are just going to have to grit their teeth and get used to it. At a press conference in Madrid, he made it clear that the high prices would be with us as long as Ukraine could convince the United States to stand with them
Q : The war [in Ukraine] has pushed [oil] prices up. They could go as high as $200 a barrel, some analysts think. How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?
THE PRESIDENT: As long as it takes, so Russia cannot, in fact, defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical, critical position for the world. Here we are. Why do we have NATO?
“So Russia cannot, in fact, defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine,” is very cold war-ish, don’t you think? It was the rationale used by the right in every American intervention during the Cold War. The left mocked any notion of Russian expansionism at the time as childish and an excuse for imperialism.

What say ye now, Joe Biden?

Supplies wouldn’t be short and prices wouldn’t be as high if Biden had continued the policies of Donald Trump that made America virtually energy independent.

Biden is going to Saudi Arabia later this month, hat in hand, to beg the Kingdom to open the spigot and pump more oil. What’s worse is that Biden refuses to take any responsibility for gas prices spiking. He has blamed everyone else for his failures. This latest idiocy demonstrates a shocking ignorance of basic economics and a childish political effort to evade blame.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

IEA: Global Nuclear Capacity Needs To Double To Meet Net-Zero Goals

SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 09:50 AM
Via OilPrice.com,
  • The IEA is calling for the world to boost nuclear capacity.
  • The agency says global nuclear capacity needs to double over the next three decades to reach net-zero goals.
  • An IEA official also noted that the energy crisis has presented a unique opportunity for a nuclear revival.
Nuclear power capacity needs to double worldwide over the next three decades to reach net-zero carbon emissions targets to ensure energy independence, argued the International Energy Agency (IEA).



The Paris-based group’s executive director Fatih Birol outlined that nuclear has a unique opportunity for a revival in the context of the global energy crisis, skyrocketing fossil fuel prices, energy security challenges, and climate commitments.

However, he suggested this was not guaranteed, and instead depended on government policy geared toward greater expansion.

Birol said: “It will depend on governments putting in place robust policies to ensure safe and sustainable operation of nuclear plants for years to come.”

In the group’s latest report, Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions, the IEA revealed nuclear power has to be significantly ramped up to meet the twin aims of supply security and net zero carbon emissions.

It has warned that to reach net-zero emissions, nuclear power capacity has to increase to 812 gigawatts (GW) by 2050 from its current 413 GW total.

While advanced economies operate nearly 70 percent of global nuclear capacity, the IEA noted nuclear fleets across the West were aging, amid stalled investment and over-budget projects.
The IEA calculates that around 260 GW, or 63 percent, of nuclear plants in the world, are currently over 30 years old and nearing the end of their initial operation licenses.

In the 2030s, annual additions of nuclear power capacity needed to reach 27 GW just to offset closed-down power plants – which could shrink by a third over the coming decade in developed economies.

For context, the UK’s ‘big new’ bet on nuclear, which represents a historic boost in nuclear power generation, is an increase from 7GW to 24GW over the next three decades.

Hinkley Point C is expected to open within the next five years, with the Government looking to secure public funding for Sizewell C – as it targets the greenlighting of eight new reactors by 2030.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Are You Willing To Suffer Through A Recession For The Good Of "The Liberal World Order"?

SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 06:20 AM
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

How much are you willing to sacrifice for “the future of the liberal world order”? As you will see below, the Biden administration is trying to convince us that supporting the “liberal world order” is far more important than any short-term economic pain that we are experiencing right now. So are you willing to pay ridiculously high gas prices for the foreseeable future and suffer through a very serious economic downturn in order to put pressure on Vladimir Putin and Russia? Some Americans would be willing to do that, but most would not.



On Friday, we learned that the U.S. economy is heading in the wrong direction a lot quicker than most of the “experts” had anticipated. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is currently projecting that economic growth for the second quarter of 2022 will be negative 2.1 percent
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2022 is -2.1 percent on July 1, down from -1.0 percent on June 30. After this morning’s Manufacturing ISM Report On Business from the Institute for Supply Management and the construction report from the US Census Bureau, the nowcasts of second-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth and real gross private domestic investment growth decreased from 1.7 percent and -13.2 percent, respectively, to 0.8 percent and -15.2 percent, respectively.
U.S. GDP growth was negative during the first quarter, and if U.S. GDP growth is negative again in the second quarter that will mean that we are already in a recession right now.

The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model should be taken very seriously, because it has a very strong track record of accuracy…
“GDPNow has a strong track record, and the closer we get to July 28th’s release [of the initial Q2 GDP estimate] the more accurate it becomes,” wrote Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research.
If it is confirmed later this month that we are already in a recession, it won’t exactly be a surprise, but the good news is that so far this new economic downturn is not that severe.

Unfortunately, we continue to see more signs that things will soon get much worse.
The pace of layoffs is really starting to accelerate and this is especially true in the tech industry.

At this point, even Facebook is looking to thin the ranks
In addition to the hiring freeze, Zuckerberg also noted the company was leaving some vacant positions at the company unfilled and “turning up the heat” on performance management to weed out staffers who are unable to meet certain KPIs.
“Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn’t be here,” Zuckerberg said, adding, “Part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turning up the heat a little bit, is that I think some of you might decide that this place isn’t for you, and that self-selection is OK with me.”
Meanwhile, we are seeing Americans cut back on their spending at a frightening pace.

In fact, one recent survey discovered that a whopping 83 percent of all Americans have “slashed personal spending due to soaring prices”
Provident Bank, based in New Jersey, found that 83% of respondents slashed personal spending due to soaring prices of food and gasoline, with 23% indicating they had to make “drastic changes” to their spending for financial survival.
According to the survey results of 600 adults, 10.5% of respondents eliminated all non-essential purchases, and nearly 72% said they made at least some changes to personal travel habits.
And Wall Street seems to have finally gotten the message that very hard times are ahead.

The first half of 2022 was the worst first half of a year for the S&P 500 since 1970, and the index has now plunged into bear market territory
This all came a day after the S&P 500 posted a more than 16% quarterly loss – its biggest one-quarter fall since March 2020. For the first half, the broader market index dropped 20.6% for its largest first-half decline since 1970. It also tumbled into bear market territory, down more than 21% from a record high set early January.
The Biden administration is openly admitting that more economic suffering is on the way, but we are being told that it is necessary.

On Wednesday, CNN interviewed a key economic adviser to Joe Biden named Brian Deese, and what Deese said during that interview is making headlines all over the globe
CNN anchor Victor Blackwell interviewed Deese on Thursday and cited that Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said on Wednesday the war between Russia and Ukraine could be a “grinding struggle” for years.

Blackwell said, “I think everybody understands why this is happening, but is it sustainable? What do you say to those families who say, listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years? This is not sustainable.”

Deese – who was formerly the global head of sustainable investing at BlackRock – replied, “What we heard from the president today was about the stakes. This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm.”
No thank you.

I don’t want anything to do with a “liberal world order”, and I am sure that most of you don’t either.

In the old days they called it a “new world order”, but that phrase now has so many negative connotations to it that they decided to come up with something new.

Will someone please tell them that “liberal world order” is even worse?

These guys really stink at branding.

Why do we even need to have a “world order” in the first place?

Why can’t we just try to get along with everyone instead of trying to force our twisted values on the entire planet?

I really wish that the U.S. and Russia would have just left Ukraine alone and would have allowed them to determine their own fate.

Needless to say, that was never going to happen, and now the U.S. and Russia are engaged in a horrifying proxy war and countless Ukrainians are being sacrificed like pawns on a chessboard.

If both sides continue to escalate this conflict, it could ultimately bring us to the brink of nuclear war.

But at least we will be supporting “the future of the liberal world order”, and isn’t that what is really important?

Many of us have been relentlessly warning about where all of this foolishness will eventually lead us, but most of the population doesn’t want to listen.

Sadly, many will just continue to support “the current thing” no matter what the consequences are.

The first half of 2022 has been full of surprises, but I am expecting global events to accelerate even more during the second half of this year.

So hold on to your hats, because I believe that things are about to start getting really, really crazy out there.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Shellenberger: Yes, You Can Blame Biden For High Energy Prices

SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 02:10 PM
Authored by Michael Shellenberger via Substack,

The experts were wrong once again...


This July 4th, as you fill up your car or truck, you might be tempted to blame President Joe Biden for high gasoline prices.

You shouldn’t, say some experts. It’s Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fault, they say. The US had to cut off Russian oil imports to punish Putin for invading Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Biden himself has blamed the American energy industry.
“At a time of war,” Biden wrote in an open letter to the industry on June 15, “high refinery profit margins being passed directly onto American families are not acceptable… companies must take immediate actions to increase the supply of gasoline, diesel, and other refined product.”
But US refineries are already operating at 94 percent of their capacity, with US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico running at 98 percent, which is the highest rate in 30 years. Running refineries at a higher capacity than that risks damaging the equipment. As such, Biden isn’t just wrong, he insulted some of the hardest working people operating in one of the most dangerous industries in America.

But, on May 12, Biden’s Interior Department blocked a proposal to open up more than one million acres of land in Alaska for oil and gas drilling. Two days later, Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency blocked plans to expand an oil refinery in the US Virgin Islands.

Biden and his defenders said he had to block the expansion of the Virgin Islands refinery, given how polluting it was.

But had Biden’s EPA allowed the Virgin Island refinery to expand, the owners would have poured nearly $3 billion into retrofitting the plant so it produced gasoline and other products more cleanly, while significantly increasing production at the same time.

Furthermore, anybody who cares about air pollution and climate change should want more oil and gas drilling, not less. US emissions declined 22% between 2005 and 2020, mostly because cheap natural gas has replaced coal.

In truth, there are many things Biden could have done, and still should do, to lower energy prices. He could invoke the National Defense Act to accelerate the rate of oil and gas permits.

He could set a floor of $80/barrel for re-filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which would be a powerful incentive for the industry, because it would prevent prices from falling to unprofitable levels. Biden could announce trade agreements with American allies to supply them with liquified natural gas, which would incentivize more natural gas production and lower prices.

If Biden got America on a wartime footing, as he should be given Russia’s aggression in Europe, we would see the lowering of oil, gas and petroleum prices in less than one year.

Why won’t Biden do it?

Because he has declared war on fossil fuels.
“I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel,” Biden promised a student climate activist in 2019.
“I am not going to cooperate with them,” he said, referring to the oil and gas industry.
And indeed, he hasn’t.

When oil and gas executives visited the White House in June, Biden snubbed them by refusing to attend the meeting. Instead, at the very same moment, he met with wind industry executives.

A few days earlier, Biden administration officials signaled they may support a large new tax on the oil industry proposed by a Senator from Oregon.

All of this has soured the oil and gas industry on investing in production.
“If you were an oil company,” a senior executive at a major US bank told me, "why would you invest hundreds of millions of dollars into expanding refining capacity if you thought the federal government or investors would shut you down in the next few years? The narrative coming from the administration is absolutely insane.”
And it’s about to get more insane. At the G-7 meeting in Germany earlier this week, French President Emmanuel Macron was overheard telling Biden that he couldn’t count on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to produce much more oil. Implicit in Macron’s remarks was that the US needs to produce far more than Biden has been willing to allow.

The problem is that Biden is in the grip of a pro-scarcity ideology that demands humankind return to relying 100 percent on renewables, like we did before the industrial revolution. But that’s a delusion...
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Dutch Farmers Set a Fire Ablaze in Front of Epe Town Hall in Response to Arbitrary Climate Change Restrictions 2:27 min

Dutch Farmers Set a Fire Ablaze in Front of Epe Town Hall in Response to Arbitrary Climate Change Restrictions
Red Voice Media Published July 3, 2022

Such restrictions threaten putting dozens of farms and cattle ranches out of business to comply with excessive EU regulations on nitrogen pollution.

Backed by the support of the people, thousands of citizens in Eindhoven protested against the same climate restrictions in solidarity with the farmers.

Source: View: https://twitter.com/RadioGenova/status/1543532315653144582?s=20&t=3Du5zBzR-UgcYT7-3iMoFg

^^^^^
The Dutch protesters are pouring manure on government offices and flooding streets .44 min

THE DUTCH PROTESTERS ARE POURING MANURE ON GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND FLOODING STREETS
^^^^^^^
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Brian-Deese-1200x630.jpg

Revealed: Brian “Liberal World Order” Deese Is BlackRock’s ESG Plant in the Biden White House

By J.D. Rucker • Jul. 3, 2022

When Brian Deese, Director of the National Economic Council, famously referred to the “Liberal World Order” last week, conservative pundits and news outlets rightly jumped on the globalist reference. But what was missed by most is that Deese isn’t just a Democrat true-believer in building back better and surrendering our sovereignty. He’s a plant who ran BlackRock’s notorious ESG program between his stints in the Obama and Biden regimes.

Here’s the video that sparked the outrage:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1542841741698637825
.26 min

On the latest episode of The JD Rucker Show, I dove into Deese’s colorful history and discussed how BlackRock is doing more than just pushing for woke policies. They may be running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Deese is either their emissary or one of the people calling the shots.

Deese started his political career as top economic advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008. When she lost, Deese moved over to Barack Obama’s campaign in the same role. He graduated from Yale Law School a year later while working for the Obama regime.

Deese was appointed as a special assistant to the president for economic policy, serving in the National Economic Council before being named deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget in the summer of 2013.

Following the departure of John Podesta, Deese took over his brief on climate and energy.

Unlike Podesta, who served as Counselor to the President, Deese was promoted to the position of Senior Advisor to the President. In this position, Deese played an influential role in negotiating the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015. Along with Katie Beirne Fallon, Deese helped to negotiate the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act, which replaced the budget sequestration and increased federal spending by $80 billion over two years. In February 2016, the President tapped Deese to oversee the Supreme Court nomination process, which led to the President’s nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on March 16, 2016.

He joined the Biden regime and is now the 13th Director of the National Economic Council.

So, what happened in the gap between his stints with the Obama and Biden regimes? He went to work for Blackrock in 2017 and left them, conspicuously, in December 2020, just in time to take his newly acquired New World Order marching orders into a high position with the White House.

While with BlackRock, he was the Global Head of Sustainable Investing. Deese led BlackRock’s Sustainable Investing Team which “is focused on identifying drivers of long-term return associated with environmental, social and governance issues.”

Yes, Deese ran BlackRock’s ESG initiative, the destructive private component of the New World Order’s plans to use public-private partnerships to usher in The Great Reset. Today, he’s working both sides of that particular partnership. Is he a liaison or is he one of the shot-callers? It could go either way.

ESG represents the most powerful tool the globalist elites are using to bring The Great Reset forward. While they rig elections and infiltrate governments to handle the public side of the public-private partnerships they envision, ESG is the tool through which to control the private side. They influence and oftentimes control major corporations through ESG, making companies beholden to their whims.

The parallel’s between the left’s ESG and the fundamental values that drive many on the right are striking. They look to Environment, Social, and Governance as their battle arenas while we look to Religion/Faith, Culture, and Politics as arenas in which we fight the good fight. The parallels are clear once we examine what ESG really is.

The “Environment” component is their religion. They worship this world, driving them to want to protect it at all costs. The “Social” component represents wokeness, or as it has been known as for decades, Cultural Marxism. This is how they intend to destroy families and make government supreme. Their version of “Governance” is not just through elected (or installed) politicians. They view The Great Reset’s future as a technocracy through which public-private partnerships allow the elites to have unprecedented direct control over our lives.

This is an existential threat. Under normal circumstances, we could address it together. Today, there are so many existential threats we’re facing that ESG has barely been a topic of discussion. We need that to change. We need to get the word out and form industrial-strength activist groups to fight them.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
14:37 min

Debunking Biden's Gas Tax Holiday Myths | @stu Does America
BlazeTV Published July 3, 2022

Since there's a lot of talk about gas tax holidays and rebate checks, let's bust some myths about what causes high gas prices. How much does the Biden Administration know about what causes high gas prices anyway? Evidently not, based on how they are confusing Americans with their intentions on fossil fuels. Here are some real facts about the gas tax holiday mistake from Stu Burguiere.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnAQfpsmdaM
5:20 min

Biden administration will meet 'ultimate demise' over 'liberal world order'

Jul 2, 2022


Sky News Australia


Political commentator Benji Irby says the Biden administration will meet its "ultimate demise" come November and in 2024 after being "caught" out a few times, saying it's trying to stop US oil production on purpose. "A few times, they've actually been caught saying that they're doing this on purpose," Mr Irby told Sky News Australia. "I mean Joe Biden talking about a transition from fossil fuels, and I think Brian Deese, his financial guy came the other day and said this is like some new liberal world order – so it's like they're saying the quiet part out loud. "But that's the real issue here – and fortunately, thank God, I think that's going to be their ultimate demise in November and 2024 when President Trump comes back."
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Build Back Poorer: How Biden’s Anti-Fossil Fuel Bias Threatens Our Economic Freedom
By
David Reavill
-July 3, 2022

Forget the image of a doddering older man who has trouble remembering his script. This President is surrounded by the most clever group of ideologues we have seen in the White House since Obama sat behind the Resolute Desk.

Those on the conservative side of the political spectrum often underestimate this Administration because we don’t understand their motivation or the direction they’re taking the country.

Using any means possible, this Administration aims to do away with oil and gas. But their energy policy is an “in your face” up-front movement to control this country’s economy. And precisely by eliminating fossil fuels.

Biden4.jpg

Joe Biden waving to onlookers

.Just three weeks ago, Biden reiterated his position when he said:
“Here’s the situation. And when it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible (sic) transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger, and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over.” ~ White House 5/23/22

At every single turn, Biden has canceled oil and gas leases and pipelines. From withdrawing the XL Pipeline, the Cook Inlet Leases, and the Gulf Coast Leases, Biden has done it all. And now the Wall Street Journal reports he will restrict drilling in the Permian Basin, one of the continental US most productive oil and gas regions.

He, or rather his Administration, is on a mission. Get rid of US oil.
Now he is a canny enough politician to see that the higher prices are costing him support. So, he proposes short-term relief: release oil from the Nation’s Strategic Reserve and visit Saudi Arabia to ask for more oil. But all proposals are designed to be temporary. And all are designed to restrict domestic production.

We first saw this kind of command economic thinking under the Obama Administration, when then-President Obama used this approach to restrict coal production. Obama declared that if you were in the coal industry, he would necessarily “bankrupt” you. It’s a strategy that, at its heart, is an anti-free market.

We are now seeing the current President utilize the same basic strategy: to try to put an entire industry in bankruptcy. Only, this time it is the oil and gas industry.

Today we’re celebrating our Independence Holiday, honoring the Declaration that set our nation free from the controls and restrictions of our colonial masters, the British.

Then it was a group of faceless bureaucrats in far-off London that wished to control the economic fate of this country. Today another group of faceless bureaucrats, this time in far off Washington, DC, want to do the same. They will limit our access to oil and gas. To control the amount and type of energy we use. And thereby exercise economic control.

Perhaps it’s time to exercise our independence from such oppression once again.

Happy Independence day!
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

oe Says No: Biden White House Blocks New Atlantic, Pacific Oceans Drilling as Global Energy Demand Soars
MIDLAND, TEXAS - MARCH 12: Workers place pipe into the ground on an oil drilling rig set up in the Permian Basin oil field on March 12, 2022 in Midland, Texas. President Joe Biden imposed a ban on Russian oil, the world’s third-largest oil producer, which may mean that oil …
Joe Raedle/Getty
SIMON KENT3 Jul 20223,692

U.S. President Joe Biden has proposed blocking all new drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as the world cries out for more energy from more sources far from Russia, the Middle East, and the OPEC oil cartel.

Biden is also moving to shut down exploration and production of oil and gas on onshore federal lands while acknowledging the importance of fossil fuels in the U.S. energy landscape, as Breitbart News reported.

A plan released Friday shows the White House proposed no more than 10 potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, an option for one potential lease sale in the northern portion of the Cook Inlet of Alaska, and no lease sales for the Atlantic or Pacific planning areas over the 2023-2028 period.

UPI reports this is not a final determination of what sales will be included, but any area or sale not included in the proposal will be off-limits during the five-year period, the Department of Interior’s Board of Ocean Energy Management noted.

During a legislative session earlier this year, Democrats had urged Biden to do more to stop offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The plea followed his administration breaking his campaign promise to ban new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters in November by approving new oil drilling leases on 1.7 million acres of federal land in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Biden administration is also under pressure from Republican-leaning states, including 14 states that sued his administration for suspending the leasing of new oil and gas drilling on federal lands, arguing it drove up energy costs, the UPI report outlined.

The White house had paused oil and gas leases in February amid a fight with Republican states over the use of carbon cost metric that put a high cost on emissions damage, but resumed them a few months ago under pressure to lower energy costs.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Tyranny Through Complexity
J.B. Shurk
July 3, 2022

Complexity


President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is roughly 270 words long. The Declaration of Independence is around 1,320 words. Those two documents alone prove the power of brevity.

(Whenever I find that I am unable to write what I’m trying to say within the Lincoln-Jefferson word limit, I chuck it in the trashcan because I’ve most likely buried my intended message under parasitic weeds.) The whole U.S. Constitution, the shortest in the world, has only 4,400 words. Yet every two-year Congress since WWII has enacted 4-6 million words of new law. A wise man once told me that if a law can’t be written in a single sentence, it has no business restricting Americans’ liberty. Over 200 million words of imposed law since the last Great War have no doubt stolen a good deal of Americans’ natural rights and liberties.

Do we believe the modern American legislature’s verbiage is a necessary requirement for fulfilling the promises outlined in our founding documents? Or is it more likely that Congress learned long ago that it could bury monumental power grabs underneath an untamed jungle of distracting weeds and has been writing new weeds into law ever since?

Tyranny comes in many forms, yet one of its subtlest is manufactured complexity. Esoteric language + complicated bureaucracy = citizen compliance. If no-one understands the law or how the monetary system works or whether some agency exercising government power is legitimate, then a great deal of corruption and crime can be committed without the public’s objection. Complexity is the favorite poison of those with power.

Consider how the government’s tyranny through complexity makes answering even the simplest questions quite difficult:
  1. Have you broken any laws today?
  2. How many departments or agencies exert power over you?
  3. Is saving money wise?
  4. What does the Constitution say?
In a society governed by reason and rationality, these four questions should be rudimentary for any citizen. Instead, they are outrageously vexing.

(1) There are tens of thousands of state and federal laws, hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations set forth by administrative decree, and limitless possibilities for judicial interpretation to shape what is legal and illegal. (2) The administrative bureaucracy is always expanding with the formation of new agency subsidiaries of some department’s creation of this group’s authority or that committee’s jurisdiction to take a slice of Executive power for itself to wield against ordinary Americans. (3) Because the Federal Reserve is a private company that manipulates the supply of U.S. currency and because the U.S. dollar is not backed by anything except the Treasury’s promise that its paper has value, saving monetary currency has the obscene effect of debasing wealth. (4) And ever since Chief Justice John Marshall empowered the Supreme Court alone to decide the Constitution’s meaning in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, courts have magically discovered implied powers, hidden rights, and unknown obligations all appearing and disappearing according to the subjective determination of any given jurist to hunt down unwritten language lurking in the “penumbras and emanations” that miraculously exist beyond the plain meaning of the Constitution’s text.

Just these past two weeks, this last point was driven home when the Court ruled correctly that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right and that New York’s restrictions on carrying guns outside the home violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. By originally divining a constitutional right to abort a child in the womb, the federal government stole power from state governments. By enforcing a gun restriction that infringes on an individual’s constitutional rights, New York stole power from anyone within its jurisdiction. The first case remedied a misreading of the Constitution that has been law in America for nearly half a century, while the second case remedied an unconstitutional power grab that has been law since 1913. That’s an awfully long time for Americans to endure illegitimate exercises of power.

When the Judiciary embraces imaginary complexity to bend the Constitution to its will, either our governing document or society will eventually snap in two.

A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.

Governance is always about overreaction and never about precise remedy. In response to the vast economic aggregation during the late 19th-century industrial boom, progressivism delivered not only curbs on corporate monopoly power, but also the creation of a vast administrative bureaucracy with unchecked powers of its own. In response to unjust Jim Crow laws, the Supreme Court acquired unjust super-legislative powers. In response to air and water pollution, President Nixon created an Environmental Protection Agency whose power has grown to stifle American industry and threaten private property. In response to a perceived health insurance crisis, Obamacare’s socialized medicine has only exacerbated the cost of healthcare while giving the government a peek at Americans’ private medical records. Every time government identifies a problem, its answer is to expand its own inherent powers and complicate matters further.

Historically, Congress’s budgetary “power of the purse” empowered the “people’s representatives” to restrict Executive overreach and the natural human proclivity to harness unchecked power. The quickest way to arrest illegitimate government power, in other words, was to stop paying for it. A century of central bank money printing, runaway deficit spending, and doomed mandatory spending commitments, however, have handed the “power of the purse” to the bankers and bureaucrats. In exchange for giving away the people’s power over their government, Congress legally encumbered the nation’s property, monetary, and banking systems in such a way as to maximize the federal government’s power over every purse in every kitchen in America.

All these legal and economic charades hide government tyranny behind so many layers of complexity that ordinary people throw up their hands in exasperation. What can possibly be done to thwart the machinations of the State when its illegitimate power grabs opened Pandora’s box long ago? That feeling of hopelessness is exactly what bureaucrats crave.

The more one denies his own agency, the more enslaved he is to whatever system he insists is oppressing him. The more one relies on a socialist system of government, the more he relinquishes individual liberty for the promises of assured survival and subsistence. The more one leans on government to provide human liberation, the further away from freedom he runs.

Through the illusion of complexity, one resulting social order becomes guaranteed: a small ruling class controls everyone else.

Here’s the thing, though: once you realize that complex institutions exist largely to tame and subdue the public, then it’s the people with extraordinarily simple yet powerful demands — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — who begin to resonate with everyone else.

Should we ever find ourselves returning to those same basic foundations that were succinctly expressed in the Declaration’s nimble 1,300 words, I propose we dispose with all laws on the book today and begin again with something exceedingly straightforward: All future legislation must be memorized and recited by at least one member of Congress before becoming law.

After all, an easily understood Constitution + a limited bureaucracy = an empowered citizen. That’s the American way.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Trump Vindicated: Germany Braces for ‘Chaotic Conditions’ Ahead of Feared Loss of Russian Gas
Trump
ANDREW HARNIK/AFP via Getty Images
PETER CADDLE3 Jul 2022373

A potential cutting-off of Russian gas would lead to recession and “chaotic conditions”, various German officials are now warning.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning that Germany’s addiction to Russian gas would have extremely negative long-term consequences appears to have been proven prophetic, with officials in the country now warning of “chaotic conditions” and severe economic recession should they lose access to Moscow’s supply.

The warnings come as Germany starts to fret that when the Kremlin turns off gas on July 11th to do annual maintenance on the gas line between the two countries, Russian authorities will use technical problems as an excuse so as not to turn the supply back on again — a move that would reportedly see the German economy tank by around €200 billion within six months.

According to various European and German news sources, the country’s officials are now firefighting regarding the possible worsening of the already severe gas crisis which has seen one major energy company enter existential financial difficulty.

In response to the financial problems such a loss of gas will cause, POLITICO is reporting that the German government is now looking to pass emergency legislation imposing a financial levy on all energy companies — whether they are involved in Russian gas imports or not — to split the costs of rising prices in an attempt to keep infrastructure afloat.

Such a move would be an alternative to simply passing on the costs of higher energy to the end-user, a move that some in the industry warn would simply result in people being unable to pay their bills, subsequently causing local energy suppliers to collapse.

“That could lead to chaotic conditions on the energy market, which would definitely get the entire energy industry in trouble and would endanger the security of supply from the ground up,” Der Spiegel reports Ingbert Liebing, general manager of the Association of Municipal Companies, as saying.

1656890902132.png

Issues surrounding the purely economic elements of the crisis are far from the only ones to arise, with warnings that a sudden loss of gas in the country would be extremely difficult to reverse on the local level due to safety mechanisms within home boilers.

According to a separate Der Spiegel report, a loss of supply would result in a fuse being triggered in hundreds of thousands of boilers across the country — fuses that could only be reset by trained professionals, a process that would take a significant amount of time thanks to strain such an event would put on tradesmEn in the sector.

“The moment the pressure in the gas network in a region falls below a certain minimum, the fuse in hundreds of thousands of gas boilers would suddenly kick in,” Klaus Müller, who serves as President of the Federal Network Agency, is reported by the publication as saying.

“They would have to be manually activated again by trained specialists if gas was available in the region again,” he continued. “Nobody can want such a scenario because it would take a very long time to restore the gas supply.”

As a result, Müller reportedly emphasised that if the supply of gas were threatened, German industry would need to be cut off first to ensure local supplies did not drop below the fuse threshold.

Such a prioritisation would likely be extremely painful for the German economy, however, with economic and climate minister Robert Habeck warning that cutting off such industry — something he himself has committed to do in the event of the Kremlin cutting Germany off from its supply of gas — would have massive knock-on effects for average Germans.

“Companies would have to stop production, lay off their workers, supply chains would collapse, people would go into debt to pay their heating bills, that people would become poorer,” Habeck said regarding the eventuality.

1656890955887.png
 
Top