Month: November 2020

Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

All eyes remain on the U.S. election, and on fathoming its consequences. But in the shadow of ‘The Election’, there are other ‘moving parts’: Germany just offered Washington ‘a sweetheart deal’ in which, Europe – with Germany leading – accepts to leverage America’s full-spectrum strategy of isolating and weakening Russia and China. And in return it is asking the U.S. to acquiesce to German leadership of a ‘power-political’, European entity that is raised to parity with the U.S. That, bluntly, is to say, Germany is angling for ‘superpower’ status, atop an EU ‘empire’ for the new era. Putin recognised such a possibility (Germany aspiring to be a superpower) during his recent speech to Valdai.

But the other ‘moving parts’ to this bid are very much in motion, too: Firstly, Germany’s ploy is contingent on their hopes for a Biden win, which may, or may not, occur. And then, too, President Macron seeks for himself, and for France, the leadership of Europe – with this latter – to an extent – being contingent on a ‘no deal’ Brexit taking place at the end of the year, that would further weaken a dis-animated and fading Merkel. France rather, plots the ‘Great Reset’ of Europe: A regulatory and values enforced ‘space’, underpinned by a common fiscal and debt regime that would rebuild France’s economic infrastructure.

All this raises many questions: Should Trump win, he can be expected to puncture any German (or French) aspiration to drain away some of America’s power, however nicely the German FM wraps it, as the U.S. not so much losing power, but as gaining “a strong partner on equal terms”. Huh!

The idea that Europe can leverage this partnership through sweet-talking Germany’s commitment “to the West as a system of values”, which is “at risk in its entirety”, and which, only Germany and the U.S. together can keep strong – does seem a bit of a daydream. Even when sugar-wrapped with “defending against the unmistakable Russian thirst for power, and Chinese ambitions for global supremacy”. Firstly, there is still Trump, and secondly —

China and Russia clearly see the game. Yet European leaders seem to expect that the former will continue as if nothing is awry. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer seems to think so (she is both Defence Minister, and Chair of the CDU, Merkel’s own party). In terms of containing “China’s aggressively controlled state capitalism”, she suggests creating a European trade sphere that is open only to those who want to strengthen and support the liberal, rules-based order – and to which other states must ‘submit’ (Macron’s words). These are the bones to how Brussels proposes to achieve ‘strategic autonomy’ (Charles Michel’s term).

Here are some extracts of Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s ‘deal’ given in a 23 October speech:

“… Most of all, America has given us what we call ‘Westbindung’ … Westbindung, to me, is and remains, a clear rejection of the historic temptation of equidistance. Westbindung anchors us firmly in NATO and the EU and ties us closely to Washington, Brussels, Paris and London. It clearly and rightly positions us against a romantic fixation on Russia – and also against an illiberal corporative state that rejects parties and parliaments [i.e. China] … Westbindung is the answer to the famous “German question”, the question of what Germany stands for … Only America and Europe together can keep the West strong, defending it against the unmistakable Russian thirst for power and Chinese ambitions for global supremacy … To be the giver [in a process of ‘give and take with the U.S.] would require us to take a firm power-political stance. To ambitiously play the geopolitical game. But even looking at all this, there are still some Americans who are not convinced that they need NATO. I understand that. Because there is one thing still missing: That is for the Europeans to take powerful action themselves, when push comes to shove. So that the United States can see Europe as a strong partner on equal terms, not as a damsel in distress. As you can see: the German dilemma is a European dilemma as well. We stay dependent [on the U.S.], but at the same time, we must come into our own. In strengthening Europe like this, Germany must play a key role … enabling it to operate more independently of, and more closely with, the United States at the same time …”.

Three major geo-political issues here are intersecting: Firstly, Germany is metamorphosing politically, in a way that holds disturbing parallels with its transition in the pre-WW1, European setting. In short, the ‘German Question’ is surfacing again (but not in AKK’s way): When the Berlin Wall fell, Russia supported the reunification of Germany and pinned hopes on Germany being a partner for the wider unification project: the construction of a ‘Greater Europe’.

It proved to be a chimaera: Germany, far from supporting Russia’s inclusion, instead, favoured the expansion of Europe and NATO to Russia’s borders. The EU – under U.S. pressure – was forming a Greater Europe that would eventually include all the states of Europe, except Russia.

But in so doing, West Europe absorbed into the EU the tumour of East European neuralgia on Russia. Berlin, all the while, has played on America’s visceral hostility towards Russia – more as a tool to build out its European space up to the Russian border. Germany thus has prioritised assuaging Eastern European ancient antipathies, above any real attempt at a relationship with Russia. Now Germany wants to ‘play it again’: In a July interview, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that the Russian leadership must be “confronted with a clear position: We are well-fortified, and in case of doubt, ready to defend ourselves. We see what Russia is doing, and we will not let the Russian leadership get away with it”.

Well: Fool me once … but fool me twice …? The Navalny episode was the last straw. It was a blatant lie. Merkel and Macron knew it to be a lie. And they knew that Moscow knew it, too. Yet they both preferred to toss the Russophobes another ‘bone’. Moscow gave up with them.

The real puzzle is why Moscow put up with this play for so long. The answer perhaps, lies with the Russian two-headed eagle, whose heads face in opposite directions: one toward Europe, and the other toward Asia. Merkel’s obvious deceit is stretching and testing social trust in Russia, just too far. The Russian élites may lean towards Europe, but their base looks East. Navalny was the humiliating straw that broke the camel’s back

Now Macron – still energised, but himself politically weakened – hopes to drain further Merkel’s strength (in mercantilist terms), through engineering a UK no-deal Brexit that would damage Germany’s huge trade surplus with Britain, at the very moment that Germany is losing markets in Russia (and now possibly in China); and when America, if Trump is re-elected, would likely embark on a trade war with Europe.

Weakening Merkel’s hand – that is – in opposing an European joint debt instrument, together with a common fiscal policies, is the aim, so that France might draw down on German fiscal resources placed within a ‘common pot’, and then deployed to revamp the French economy.

The Brussels plan for a ‘Great Reset’ – transforming the European economy, and the social sphere – through automation and technology is, as Tom Luongo has noted delusional: “[W]hat’s been pretty clear to me is Europe’s delusions that it can subjugate the world under its rubric, forcing its rules and standards on the rest of us, including China, [whilst] again allowing the U.S. to act as its proxy – [as Europe] tries to maintain its [‘power-political’] standing is delusional”.

Why?

‘Delusional’, as although China may be an “aggressively controlled state capitalism” in Euro-speak, it is also a major ‘civilisational state’, with its own distinct values. Brussels may call their regulatory space ‘open’, but it is clearly exclusionary, and not multilateral. The action of this politics is only pushing the world towards a separation of distinct regulatory spheres – and toward deeper recession.

On the practical plane, whereas first phase Covid tended to provide support to Europe’s incumbent governments, this present infection spike is shredding support for incumbents. Protests and riots are increasingly taking place across Europe. Episodes of violence have been met with horror by the authorities, which suspect that organized crime and radical groups are at work to spark a political wildfire. And that potential is very much there.

To the structural unemployment already incurred in phase one, now must be added another wave of possibly irreversible unemployment, (again) in the services sector. For small businesses and the self-employed, it is a nightmare. Not surprisingly, the anger grows as those losing their means of living observe that civil servants and the middle classes more generally, are passing through this episode, virtually unscathed.

European governments have been caught off-guard. There is absolute confusion as governments try to square keeping the economy alive, with containing the infected from overwhelming hospitals – achieving neither. This represents the cost of the ‘summer opening’ to save the tourist season. No one is on their balcony these evenings banging cooking pots in communal solidarity. Today, protests and riots have taken their place.

Into this mounting anger is inserted dark suspicion. Some may view Covid as pure conspiracy; others will not. Yet it is not ‘conspiracy’ to believe that European governments may knowingly have used the pandemic to increase their tools of social control, (despite ‘distancing’ being a genuine medical containment strategy). Was this concerted in anticipation of the changes implicit to the ‘Great Reset’? We do not know. Yet, from the outset, western governments couched their measures as ‘war’ – and as war that required war-time state-directed economics, and war-time public compliance.

Rightly or wrongly, it is becoming a culture war. Overtones of the anger on U.S. streets. Again, dark suspicions that cultural life is being closed down in order to prepare Europeans for the drowning of their cultural identities into a big Brussels-made, melting-pot. These fears may be misplaced, but they are ‘out there’, and viral.

It is Europe’s political fabric and societal cohesion that is in play – and its leaders are not just confused: They fear.

It would indeed be hubristic delusion then, were European leaders to proceed with the automation ‘Great Reset’, and add yet more structural unemployment to a pile, already threatening to topple, under its growing weight (into mass protest). Do they want revolution?

Just days after Capital One announced that all of its ‘call center’ workers would be allowed to work from home permanently if they so desired, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank have ordered all of their staff in London (and for Deutsche, all staffers in the UK) to work from home until they hear otherwise.

Goldman Sachs said only ‘in-office essential’ employees would be allowed to work from its London office after UK PM Boris Johnson announced the new lockdown measures. 

This represents a remarkable shift from where the bank stood in September, when it started to quietly move staff back to the office.

To be sure, Goldman in-office essential employees represents a tiny fraction of the bank’s 5,000 workers in London. Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, has said that employees who are eligible to continue working from DB’s UK offices will receive an email Monday evening with instructions.

An internal memo obtained by Bloomberg said only essential workers will be permitted to come to GS’s Plumtree Court building, according to an internal memo. Deutsche Bank also informed staff that only essential employees can work from all the bank’s offices in the UK. Gyms will remain open, for another day, but they will be closed by Wednesday,

Goldman, DB and other banks paused plans to bring bankers back to the office in September after outbreaks were discovered on trading floors owned by JPM, Goldman and Deutsche in both New York and London. 

Before that, JPM CEO Jamie Dimon publicly leaked research from the bank criticizing working from home as a drain on “creative intelligence” displayed by the bank’s younger analysts.

Submitted by SouthFront,

The diplomatic process surrounding the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani war in the Nagorno-Karabakh region has reached an expected stalemate. The Armenians do not want to surrender. The Azerbaijani-Turkish bloc does not want to drop its chances for a military victory.

On October 30, the sides tried to reach another humanitarian ceasefire brokered by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and once again agreed to exchange prisoners, dead bodies and not strike civilian targets. This agreement collapsed as expected a few minutes after it was reached. Speculations of US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien about the possible deployment of some mysterious Scandinavian peacekeepers looks like wishful thinking.

In these conditions, the pro-Western government of Armenia started to suspect that its NATO allies will not help it in the war with Azerbaijan which is supported by another NATO member state. So, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan opted to write an official request to Moscow complaining that the Armenian pro-Western policies do not help and it is time for Russia to rescue it. In the letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Pashinyan remembered that Armenia is formally a Russian ally and asked to ensure the security of Armenia under the existing defense treaties between Moscow and Yerevan. In response, Russia announced that it will provide all necessary assistance to Armenia, if the war comes to Armenia’s territory. Russia still remains the only real guarantor of Armenian territorial integrity.

As to the Nagorno-Karabakh question, Armenia itself does not recognize this territory as an independent sate or as a part of Armenia. Furthermore, after a month of war, Armenia has not officially entered the war in Karabakh and avoided the decision of officially sending its regular troops there.

The situation on the frontline remains critical for the Armenians. Azerbaijani forces continue their pressure in the direction of the Lachin corridor and the second largest town in the region – Shusha. Baku insists that these offensive actions are just a response to the ceasefire violations by Armenia. The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry also says that all reports about the usage of white phosphorus munitions by Azerbaijani forces are just Armenian provocations and such munitions can be used by the Armenians themselves to fake the evidence.

The Armenian vision of the situation is expectedly quite different. It says that Armenian forces do not shell civilian targets while the forces of Azerbaijan intentionally target civilians. The Armenian Defense Ministry also reported that the Azerbaijani military has suffered even more casualties after their attacks on Lachin and Shusha. Thus, the alleged number of Azerbaijani casualties reached 6,947. At the same time, Azerbaijan allegedly lost 656 armoured vehicles, 6 rocket launchers, 25 military planes, 16 helicopters and 239 UAVs.

Despite these claims, the Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc keeps the initiative in the conflict. The long frontline and attempts of Armenian forces to protect all of what they currently have instead of concentrating thier main forces on the key positions contribute to the strategic advantage of Azerbaijan because it has an upper hand in manpower, military equipment and it dominates the skies. In general, the Armenians have more motivated infantry but this appears to be not enough.

In these conditions, there are two main hopes for the Armenian leadership:

1. A permanent ceasefire and return to the negotiations process with Azerbaijan due to the increasing international pressure on Baku (through diplomatic channels and sanction threats);
2. A military intervention by some third party in the conflict on the side of Armenia.

For the second scenario, the main candidate is Russia. Currently, Moscow demonstrates that it is not going to intervene in the conflict militarily if it remains in the territory of Karabakh. At the same time, Turkey and Azerbaijan are also not interested in expanding the territory of the conflict further because this will likely lead to the involvement of some third party in the war that would lead to the military defeat of Azerbaijani forces. Thus, in some scenarios, the Armenians could be directly interested in a Turkish-Azerbaijani attack on Armenian sovereign borders, especially in the area where Russian forces are deployed. Shelling of Armenian territory by Azerbaijan has already taken place and Azerbaijan accused Armenia of using weapons deployed near Karabakh in the conflict. However, now, Yerevan could even more actively involve its troops deployed inside Armenia to strike Azerbaijani forces in Karabakh. For example, Armenia can use its artillery units deployed near the border area. This as well as the public employment of regular troops could become the last try of the Armenians if they really aim to win the war.

At the same time, the actions of the Pashinyan government in the previous years and since the start of the war raise concerns that he and his Soros-linked circle are not really interested in Nagorno-Karabakh. First, they created diplomatic conditions for the Azerbaijani-Turkish advance there and now the Pashinyan government is just playing a propaganda hand as it allows Azerbaijan to recapture the area. In general, this will allow the current political regime in Armenia to make an ever more dramatic turn towards ‘Western integration’ and resolve the ‘territorial issue’ that prevents its further formal cooperation with NATO.

Monday witnessed demonstrations unprecedented in size by hardline Muslims in Bangladesh as tens of thousands flooded the center of Dhaka, the capital city. The country’s largest Islamist group, Hefazat-e-Islam, is pressuring the government to sever all diplomatic and economic ties with France over accusations that President Emmanuel Macron made ‘anti-Islamic’ statements after recent terror attacks wherein he condemned “Islamist terrorism” and said that global Islam is “in crisis”. Smaller but fierce demonstrations were also reported in Indonesia Monday.

“We are giving an ultimatum to the government to end diplomatic ties with France within 24 hours,” said Junayed Babunagari, head of Hefazat-e-Islam. “If our demands are not met, we will announce our next course of action,” he added amid shouts of approval from the crowd. 

There’s been days of similar demonstrations in other capitals with large Muslim populations where rioters have sought to reach the local French Embassy, such as happened days ago in Islamabad, Pakistan when the embassy there came under attack by rioters hurling stones. 

Another Bangladeshi protest leader on Monday was cited in AP as saying protests would not cease until Macron apologizes and recants his remarks. “I ask the French government to apologize to the 2 billion Muslims in the world,” a protest leader identified as Nur-Husain-Kashemi said.

“I also ask the world’s Muslims to demonstrate their faith by boycotting French products and terminating diplomatic relations with France,” he added.

▶️ Thousands of Muslims marched through the streets of Bangladesh’s capital of Dhaka, Monday, in protest of French President Emmanuel Macron.

👉 At Least 50,000 People Participate in Anti-France Protest in Bangladeshhttps://t.co/4wso2WKbZk pic.twitter.com/0A17U50F6K

— The Voice of America (@VOANews) November 2, 2020

It doesn’t look like the government is ready to follow through anytime soon, particularly given France remains the fourth biggest single export destination for Bangladesh’s crucial ready-made garment industry.

Given Monday’s horrific terrorist attack in Vienna in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, and which follows on the heels of deadly attacks in France, it appears the political Islamists are advancing a “clash of civilizations” narrative akin to the lead-up to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre. 

Indonesia has also seen large Islamist protests with people seen carrying signs reading “Macron is the real terrorist”.

More than 1,000 police were reportedly deployed around the French Embassy in Jakarta, and also blocked off the road leading to it.

Authored by Tessa Lena via ‘Tessa Fights Robots’ substack,

What is “the Great Reset”?

The Great Reset is a massively funded, desperately ambitious, internationally coordinated project led by some of the biggest multinational corporations and financial players on the planet and carried out by cooperating state bodies and NGOs. Its soul is a combination of early 20th century science fiction, idyllic Soviet posters, the obsessiveness of a deranged accountant with a gambling addiction—and an upgraded, digital version of “Manifest Destiny.”

The peasants are getting fat, and they are breeding! Oh no.

The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust—but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as “their limited resources.” Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air—literally—while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with “behavioral modification,” a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful “privilege”).

The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet. I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you. Just ants and numbers, your assets.

Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

• one, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology), and

• two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest “science.”

The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital anxiety and precision—all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability. The king’s world feels far more predictable and relaxed when the chaos of human subjectivity is contained for good.

Plus, as a potentially lucrative aside, a bunch of these tightly managed “assets” can be also turned into new financial instruments and traded. Game on!

In other words, it’s an “efficient” global feudalism that goes much farther than its medieval brother since the scanner is all-seeing: every person, every mineral, and every berry is digitally tagged and tracked. Under that framework, every peasant has a function that is derived not from the mystery of life, and not from their inner calling—but from AI, the master of efficiency and the servant of the king. Ideally, the peasants can be convinced that it’s good for them (or necessary to be safe, see “contact tracing”) and that this is what progress and happiness are like—but if not, there are other ways, from classic violence to virtual prisons to “morality pills.”

The reform in question is meant to disrupt all areas of life, on a planetary scale: government, international relations, finance, energy, food, medicine, jobs, urban planning, real estate, law enforcement, and human interactions—and it starts with changing the way we think of ourselves and our relationship with the world. Notably, privacy is a huge thorn in the collective eye of our “great resetters”—and—as I am typing this, they are pushing their sweet talking points about how privacy is really an outdated concept—especially when it comes to people’s medical data, sheesh—and that we simply cannot move forward with the bright future if silly people keep clinging to their privacy.

I will briefly go over different elements of this slippery reform in a sec—but to sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory. It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account—perhaps without any human intervention at all.

Thus, on a sensory level—as it relates to money and power—this conveyor is an attempt of the super wealthy to organize and monetize their “assets,” including people—more efficiently than ever before. On a theological level, the initiative is shaped by transhumanism, a formal belief system rooted in a pathological feeling of being repelled by all things natural—and a resulting view of biological forms as defective robots, which are made perfect, serial killer perfect, by merging with machines in a way that redefines the meaning of being alive and defies death itself.

I would like to stress that we should never underestimate the importance of subjective feelings and theology in the shaping of historical events. Our entire history is a sum of subjective choices—where the choices of the more powerful and the more driven weigh more. And religious reform, which typically stems from various powerful individuals’ subjective preference for what the big picture should be like, has been a driver of large-scale social, economic, and cultural changes on this planet for centuries. What we are looking at here is a new religion—and as much as I want to believe in the general cleanliness and rationality of the system—on the higher level, we are not dealing with a rational, scientific, honest, benevolent—or even misguided—attempt to make things better. When it comes to the masterminds of the Great Reset, we are dealing with a combination of standard greed—and the emotional pathology of restless, rotting madmen who are freaking out over the maintenance of their property in this new era, and who resent their biological nature as such and want to be gods. Sadly, the crazies are rich and well-connected, and they can hire a million underlings to put on a convincing, feel-good, rational external-facing presentation about their new religion. And to bribe the media. And politicians. And academics. And campaign organizers. And non-profits. And let’s not forget my brethren, the artists, who, out of starvation and indignity, will then create beautiful, artful, moving ads for anything that pays. And by the time the circle is complete, we have a brand new public opinion and technically, still a “democracy”! If only those conspiracy theorists went away…

So, who are the people leading this, and how coordinated is this effort?

From the looks of it, it seems to be the usual suspects: top capitalists of the world, historically wealthy dynasties from different parts of Earth, members of secular and religious royalty, billionaires, etc.—in other words, it’s the people who have enough money to feel like this world is theirs, the 0.0001%—and maybe also the people immediately under them who are seeking upward mobility. Some familiar faces, some faces we’ve never seen.

Obviously, they are not a monolithic mass, and I am sure that they don’t agree with each other on everything and probably compete over who gets to eat more peasants. There is certainly rivalry between the American and the Chinese elites, for example, or between the American and the Russian elites—as well as between different individual super sharks. But all in all, even as they compete, they have shared interests and shared messaging, and there is more strategic camaraderie and common ground between them than between any of them and any of the peasants. For example, none of them is likely to turn down the idea of creating a new class of financial assets to make money off! In addition, they also have advisers—who, in turn, are competing with each other for the highest pay, trying to push their ideas through. All subjective, yet also extensively—and expensively—coordinated in areas of their shared interests.

And currently, the “winning” concept of the day seems to be a world filled with abbreviations: AI, 5G, IoT, and so on. A world where the money is digital, the food is lab-grown, where everything is counted and controlled by giant monopolies, and the people are largely deprived of free will. A world where each element of nature and each living being is either a data host, or a source of energy—or both. A world where the flow of the peasants’ everyday is micromanaged by ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI that registers thoughts and feelings before the people even get a chance to make those thoughts and feeling their own. A world where living itself is outsourced to the machine, and a human being is essentially a meat suit.

Now, I don’t think that this exact vision will ever come true in full. It is likely to implode before it gets half-way there—and some of what I just described is no more than daydreaming of a very broken mind. But the powerful crazies are trying their best to make this nightmare reality. Thus, the danger is not in being overtaken by suddenly self-conscious AI but in the disruption of normal life and in the utter misery that the crazies may cause to our minds and bodies as they rush to slice and dice the world, using various convenient catch phrases such as “global health crisis” or “climate change.”

And yes, there is definitely coordination and continuity, as there is continuity in dynasties and philosophical trends. Some of it is more ephemeral, and some of it is more concrete. On the ephemeral side, the vision of the “resetters” is related to the futuristic ideas that were popular in the early 20th century, to the dream of a global corporate monopoly that propped up the bolshevik revolution of 1917, and to the overall crave of controlling the world with technology, something that was attempted and failed in the Soviet Union in the 60s—using the language very similar to today’s. On the concrete side, the Great Reset (which by the way is very well coordinated, to the extent that both Biden and Johnson are using the same coded words put forward by the WEF) grows out of the post-WWII efforts to maintain a “correct” power balance in the world, with “correct” financial interests reaping the benefits.

The “sustainability” language, which is an important pillar of the Great Reset marketing kit, was initially created as a part of various United Nation’s programs—such as “Agenda 21” and “Agenda 2030,” and I am sure that during the production of those programs, both elements—conspiracy and benevolence—were present. Both are sets of extremely dry and boring documents about resource management and justice, which read like something written by a tired, square Soviet teacher with a good grasp of bureaucratic terms, written mostly to justify the paycheck of the bureaucrats and the existence of the United Nations. What’s interesting about the latter is that typically, the UN is pretty useless, meaning that people get together, talk, come up with long bureaucratic documents and non-binding resolutions—and then nothing of essence happens. But not this time. Not now. The program’s on! So it must be important to somebody who’s paying. And yes, I am cynical. In everything that happens, there is always a combination of good intentions, greed, ambition, personal relationships, financial interests, delusions, and so on. Politicians talk to financiers, generals talk to politicians, somebody is somebody else’s uncle, and this is how things get done. Unfortunately, the less straightforward the top-down messaging, and the more abundant the propaganda, the less the value of good intentions, and the easier it is for villains to pull off utter absurdities.

And of course, initiatives of such great magnitude may go through very long and quiet “planning phases,” during which the desired ideas are being planted in the heads of the desired people through private conversations, small meeting, funded research, industry conventions, and the like. So by the time the “action” button is pressed, it feels like a trend is already there. And let me repeat again, absolutely everything in history is a result of subjective choices made by subjective people. The way everything in history happens is that people get together, decide what they want to do, and do it. When important people act, the impact is more visible. So, in a way, everything is a “conspiracy,” because everything comes through human agency. And often, the important people cover up their deeds, that shouldn’t be a radical idea.

And yes, by now, the top power holders in the West have figured out that it’s more cost-effective and less labor-consuming for them to just bribe the media “of record,” the scientists, the academics, the politicians, and even the “controlled opposition”—and have them convince the peasants—than to police everything and everyone by force. And by the way, while the pinnacle of this tower is a conspiracy in earnest, in a sense of it being a coordinated effort where the masterminds are acting in general alignment with each other, without disclosing their true long-term goals to the peasants—the rest of the tower is probably the usual human stuff, multiplied by the lack of the old-fashioned, moral sense of responsibility. The usual human stuff is a medley of ambition, hustling, greed, carelessness, arrogance, and even good intentions. The closer to the bottom, the more ignorance and the better the intentions—because most people do believe that they are doing good—but it doesn’t change the tragic trajectory of the “resetting” cavalcade.

Okay but maybe hold on, there is a real crisis, and the rich have woken up because they want to live? What if there is no conspiracy per se, and they have simply realized that the planet is a mess, and now they want to address the issues of overpopulation and pollution because there really are too many people on the planet who are all over-consuming and polluting? What do you say to that?

I am glad you asked, so let’s talk about that.

It is absolutely true that the soulless, utilitarian approach to nature, to life, and to other living beings has been extremely destructive—with the most immediate, most visible destruction outsourced to “third world countries” and to the less financially fortunate people in the West. (See landfills, Cancer Alley, and unhealthy, poison-filled non-organic foods). It is true that massive consumerism and the use disposables (brought to us by more or less the same parties who are now scolding people for consumerism) have created a lot of messes. It is true that our oceans and lungs are full of plastic, that the amount of chronic disease is skyrocketing, and that many species are dying off. It is true that our soil, our food, and our bodies are tainted with highly toxic glyphosate. It is true that usually, decades pass between the time manufacturers realize the toxicity of their product and the time when saying so in a conversation stops being a conspiracy theory. All true. However, it is also true that the people who are pointing fingers at social ills and telling us that we need a Great Reset are from same camps and lineages that have caused it in the first place. It is true that underneath the language of their marketing brochures, there is toxicity and havoc that greatly exceed what we have today. Thus, they are either idiots or liars—and I am afraid it is the latter. However rich, they are not even remotely morally qualified to fix anything in this world. And whatever we choose to do to heal our relationship with nature and with each other—it definitely isn’t the technofascist, neofeudal Great Reset.

A metaphor: If the leader of the Rapists Party came up with a Platform Against Rape that didn’t stop the raping but that rebranded the very act by saying that if one uses a pink dildo made of recycled plastic to penetrate, then it’s not rape… would you think it’s a platform against rape in earnest?

So no, they are not the people to lead the way (just check out this garbage in space idea). If we go along, we will end up with a world that looks like this:

Speaking of solutions, there are plenty of activists and local leaders, such as Vandana Shiva, for example, coming up with ways to heal our relationship with nature. There are whistleblowers. There are lawyers fighting corporate giants and sometimes winning. There are doctors risking their careers to protect their patients. There are local farmers. There are artists baring their souls. There are truth tellers. There is dignity, and there is respect if we insist on them. I believe that good long-term solutions come from inner honesty and peace, and that each of us possesses the unique genius that helps us locate our piece of the puzzle, which ultimately heals the world.

As far as there being too many people on the planet, I think even that is spin. Actually, Vandana Shiva has produced analysis of industrial vs. traditional local agriculture in terms of numbers, and it looks like we’ve been lied to by Big Ag about their importance, too. Also, the biggest “demographic problem” in the West right now is the growing number of the old vs. the young. And even in the “developing world,” the trends seem to be different from what we are are taught to think. And furthermore, the planet has enough for all, and the reason we are facing scarcity is because that 0.0001% of people control a lot. Ironically, they are the same people who are worried that there is not enough, pushing the idea of overpopulation—often while breeding enthusiastically—and infecting young brains with the idea of overpopulation to the extent that now, some middle-class young people don’t want to have kids, “to save the planet.” How messed up is that?

And yes, the idea of overpopulation has been worrying the leaders for some decades. I would argue that at times, their thoughts have carried eugenics overtones (see, for example, this 1974 Kissinger Report that brags about “incentivizing” Indian men to get vasectomies). And no, it wouldn’t be completely crazy to posit that eugenics didn’t quite go away since Hitler has ruined the brand, and that whoever believes themselves to own the world, probably wouldn’t mind a little more surgical management of the demographic trends. Can I read their minds? No. I can’t say who exactly thinks what exactly, and luckily for me, I am not invited to their meetings—but every now and then, personas like Gates or Prince Charles say things that sound quite Hitleresque, and it make me wonder. On the other hand, I don’t find it particularly shocking because human nature hasn’t changed since the time when eugenics was socially acceptable in the “respectable society.” Thus, my theory is that some powerful people of the world are truly evil and probably fiddling with eugenics—and some are probably just indifferent to the desires of the peasants—but on my end, I don’t really care which one it is. Evil or indifferent, I don’t want them to destroy my world. Is that too much to ask?

My job is Poison Distributor.
My condition is
Hatred of Biological Forms.
They call me deranged
But I am the sanest of all.
They call me a merciless killer,
A sadist, a robot, a king.
But I am just a perfectionist.

My job is Poison Distributor.
My religion is
Hatred of Unpredictable Shapes.
My poison will find you
In words,
In the water you drink,
In food,
In the air your breathe,
This way or another,
It’ll find you.

My job is Poison Distributor.
A very practical job.
You are welcome.

Now, let’s quickly look at the areas that, according to the blueprint of the Great Reset, need to be disrupted and completely redesigned. That is a giant topic in itself, and I will only touch upon it lightly, with a special focus on the language used and how it overlaps with the “pandemic response.” I strongly encourage you to go to the World Economic Forum website and look around.

Statehood and Governance.

In the new world, countries still exist but they all abide by a central order. It’s “cooperative” (wink, wink). A lot of government functions are automated and delegated to AI. Decisions are based on data and algorithms, there is no privacy, and there is a lot more fluidity as far as migrations (so unfortunately, the very humane sentiment of being kind to immigrants that is being promoted in the media might not about kindness, which is a bummer to me personally). There is also a possibility of replacing human governments with AI altogether, but not immediately. The reasoning is simple: In order for the super wealthy to manage global inventory, individual governments have to act more like mid-level managers accountable to international authorities than like independent federal governments.

(Remember how “mom and pop shops” were pushed off the market and replaced by chain stores? Same thing here except in this case, the mom and pop stores are countries.)

Traditional America, now, is very much in the way of this. Its habit of generous consumption and free expression, its self-centered foreign policies, its sense of entitlement, and its big suburban houses are a no-go. A traditional, independent, strong America is an obstacle. In that light—and with a disclaimer that I don’t think that there is such a thing as a just empire, I feel like there is an active effort to “even America out,” to co-opt its government, to destroy farms and small businesses—especially the ones that are not consistent with this all-digital future—and to bring down the entitled middle class, especially in “outdated” career paths. It feels like we are currently in the middle of a “color revolution,” a soft coup. Usually, American elites do it to other nations—but now it’s happening on the domestic soil. It feels like the Great Reset agenda, through its messengers and through its money, is shaping both the schizophrenic “COVID response” and the suddenly mainstream and well-funded, super corporate “social justice / climate” movement, which are all at this point intertwined in terms of messaging. Both pretend to promote pubic good, and both skillfully weaponize real issues and get a rise out of people who have a real love of fairness in their hearts—all to clear the way for the financial goals of the “great resetters”—such as a complete erosion of privacy (see contact tracing), moving all human activities online (see, well, everything), AI-based law enforcement and precrime (see “defund the police”), and so on. And yes, America has many honest problems. But it’s not like the current structures are being replaced with a council of spiritually grounded, wise indigenous elders who are deeply connected to Earth and who will not hurt any innocent life. What’s being attempted—however fuzzy the marketing coverup—is far worse, far less humane, and far more destructive than what we have today. I don’t like it.

Finance.

It’s digital currency, crypto, and mobile payments all the way. The citizens must be totally transparent and leave a trace of everything they do, remember?

Food.

All I can say is I hope you like cockroach meat, because it’s coming.

Cynical remarks aside, the “future of food” is a disaster. The liars in high chairs have the nerve to use good words like “sustainable development” but there is nothing sustainable about this thing. It’s BigAg on steroids, very toxic. And, incidentally, it’s also energy-consuming as all these robots, sensors, and data centers ain’t free, but who’s counting that.

Also, today’s farms have to go. Not only are the pesky traditional local farmers competing with patented lab-grown food and—also patented—GMOs, and—also patented—soils—they are also taking up the space needed for royal recreational areas, as well as wind turbine and solar panel parks (which all take up a lot of space, by the way). And what do you know, maybe the kings really want to “conserve” some patches of nature by keeping it free of people. It’s their inventory, after all, it makes sense to maintain it well.

No wonder the “COVID response” is hitting the farms so hard, forcing them to go out of business…

Agriculture

Now a new global citizens report, published by Navdanya shows that behind do-gooding image of the Gates Foundation lies a toxic philosophy of philanthrocapitalism that relies on corporate takeover of our seed,agriculture, food, knowledge and global health https://t.co/5B1hs113dA

— GENetwork (@GenEngNetwork) October 18, 2020

Education.

Online.

Medicine.

Tele-

So far, in both medicine and education, we are very much on track, thanks to the global pandemic…

Energy.

Now, this one is interesting. Because fossil fuels, the devil of today’s marketing, are genuinely bad. It’s true that oil extraction is abusive to the planet. The spills create a lot of havoc, and they happen all the time. Oil barons are bandits. People who live close to refineries get sick. Plastic, which comes from oil, is polluting everything, from the oceans to our stomachs and lungs. However, fossil fuels are also the only energy source—besides nuclear—that is currently capable of supporting the world’s population’s consumption levels. Furthermore, if you look under the hood of “green,” it’s not that green, really, unless we are talking the color of money. Solar panels take up a ton on space (see below), they degrade quickly, and turn into toxic heaps.

Wind turbines also take up a ton of space and have their own problems. Both are highly dependent on weather and don’t provide sufficient energy. It is also noteworthy that the recent film by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, which was exploring some of the not so green aspects of “green energy” and shedding light on some of the corruption in the environmental movement, was attacked by the leading environmentalists to viciously and so uniformly that the film was removed from major platforms and kind of disappeared from the public eye.

Anyway, what’s going to happen if fossil fuels go away? By the way—and this is an important point—I am not actually convinced that the “resetters’” intend for fossil fuels to truly go away. I think we could be looking at an act of rebranding. I did think until recently that they really wanted to “disapper” fossil fuels—but then I looked into “climate tech”—and now I am thinking that the things are more complex, that it could be a strategic geopolitical maneuver. I don’t know. There are some peculiar technological overlaps between fossil fuels and “green” energy—but time will tell. In any case, if they either go away or pretend to go away, we’ll quickly discover that wind and solar are not cutting it—and then, we’ll meet our new king of “green” energy, nuclear fusion, yay.

When that happens, our friend, the famous philantrocapitalist, will come to rescue. He is heavily invested in nuclear fusion reactors—in fact, his favorite project, according to himself. (Actually, he happens to be very deeply involved in about every bullet point on the Great Reset list, what a business genius he is.) But wait, to make the intrigue even more interesting, the WHO, which of course enjoys his generous funding, has in the past gone to great lengths to underplay the health toll of nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Speaking of energy and finance, let’s talk about “human capital.” In the new world, “human capital” is not just a metaphor for HR or labor. Microsoft, for example, has a patent for a method of transforming human behavior into cryptocurency, which is done through an unspecified device coupled with a server that registers body activity and “mines” crypto. Since under the New Normal, digital and crypto are supposed to become mainstream, this looks suspiciously like a tool that can be used both to tightly control the behavior of the poor who may depend on this for income—and to literally mine the bodies of otherwise “useless” welfare dependents / UBI recepients for energy (which, by the way, is an actual thing, believe it or not).

Furthermore, this patent could potentially be used to create a new financial instrument because, if mined for energy, these people become “assets” that could possibly be bunched together into virtual portfolios and virtually traded. See how neat? Now, we are talking proper serfdom! And yes, this sounds very sci-fi but let’s not forget how some billionaire “visionaries” think—not like normal people, or else the workers at Amazon warehouses wouldn’t be wearing diapers to skip bathroom breaks. Also let’s not forget that today, there is trading of very theoretical items as well as betting on weather. A lot of money in this world is made on strange, arbitrary things!

Speaking of weather, the Great Reset also legitimizes the dangerous, invasive atrocity that is geoengineering, and makes it potentially “cool” and “life-saving,” just like some “climate change movement” white papers do. I noticed that and mourned that fact a couple of years ago, screaming from the rooftops about how messed up it was. Spraying toxic crap in the air is cool and “green”? What an act of linguistic trickery.

Also, a word on carbon. I am not going to get into the entire thing because the article is already long, however, it seems that whatever the story of carbon was at birth, by now the story has transformed into a tool of creating a market out of thin air, and a bunch of financial instruments to make money off, also out of thin air. For example, look at this plant, backed by Gates and some oil giants. My favorite part is that after carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere using a cocktail of chemicals, one of the ways to store the loot is to burn a bunch of trees (sorry, “biomass”). Yes, that makes perfect sense, because who can make money off simply leaving trees alone and letting them do the job, for free? What kind of idiot would allow that?

I would also like to point out the fact that when it’s stored, it’s stored deep underground in ways never done before. (What does is do the inner processes of the planet? Did anybody think this through?) It also requires building pipelines to transport carbon dioxide from one place to another, much like transporting oil. And finally, carbon capture and storage is incredibly energy intensive, and the energy comes from… fossil fuels? Nuclear? Wind turbines that then have to take up half of the planet’s surface? Oh I don’t know… And speaking of language, the goal is not “zero carbon emissions,” it’s “Net Zero Carbon Emissions,” which means that we can keep polluting, and then build a new lucrative industry on top of it, while creating a new kind of pollution. In other words, business as usual…

Also, while we are on the topic of “green sustainable development,” isn’t building a lot more surveillance tech and infrastructure—which are all extremely energy-consuming not to mention unclean—at odds with the idea of green? I thought about it a while ago when I read, with great initial excitement, the text of the Green New Deal proposed legislation. I was, like, yay justice and indigenous rights, yay…. wait… “smart” power grids? Isn’t it exactly what Big Tech wants, and doesn’t it imply a need for smart sensors that come with more infrastructure and satellites, more towers, a loss of privacy, and new kind of wireless pollution producing untested health effects? It stopped me on my tracks and compelled me to look into various “green” initiatives—and as a result, discover various skeletons in the closet. And then I stumbled into the work of Cory Morningstar, and I was like, wow. My instincts were right, it’s not exactly what it seems!!

Now, this provides a nice segue into how the “global health crisis” narrative plays into the Great Reset.

First, some housekeeping notes.

As I said before, the Great Reset is an extremely ambitious plan of restructuring both the world’s economy—and the very notion of what it means to be alive. (Is an AI-nudged zombie whose decision-making is externalized really alive?) Without a cooperating population, this ambitious economic and religious reform cannot succeed.

What is the best way of making the population cooperate with this very strange reform? It’s fear—because promises of pleasure are not enough to pull off such a massive and bizarro shift. Thus, it has to be fear and stress, whether it’s because of an external enemy, a prospect of a natural disaster, or a disease.

Let’s not forget that prior to 2020, there has already been a very expensively organized fear narrative, supported by more or less the same players who are now pushing for the Great Reset. I am of course talking about the weaponized “climate change” narrative. And while there are plenty of environmental problems that need to be addressed asap, the corporate “climate change” movement has been strangely focused on messaging that roughly coincides with the messaging of the Great Reset campaign, serving their financial goals—and the funding trajectories also overlap. So it looks like the financial interests behind the Great Reset tried out to use the “climate movement” first but it didn’t generate the desired fear levels quickly enough. Not enough people cared. I have personally sat through a training session, and am familiar with “organizing” and the neurolinguistic programming tricks that are supposed to make the audiences very worried about the climate. The messaging is very well thought-through and gives away a generous financial backing, it’s not a hippie grassroots movement—even if a lot of individual people sincerely pour their souls into that. Just like rank-and-file Jehovah witnesses knocking on your door might be extremely sincere.

As a human being, I don’t trust any entity that coldly, calculatedly, tries to make me scared and trigger a stress response. The people I listened to didn’t seem very afraid themselves. They were well-fed, middle-class, and not underemployed. They were not afraid to be arrested at a protest—and actually they sought to be arrested, without any fear for their future employment. After seeing that, I started asking questions as to why they wanted me to be afraid, and what they wanted me to do. When I started asking questions and researching, it turned out that the trajectory of “solutions” included things like smart grids, electric cars (that are not remotely green), and geoengineering. That, to me, was not acceptable. It also meant that they didn’t really respect the planet because if they did, they wouldn’t want to stick towers everywhere or spray crap in the atmosphere to block the sun. Now, it is very possible that the environmental movement was good and honest when it just started—but a lot of it has been since hijacked, in a very stealthy way where the people on the ground don’t even realize whom they are serving. And again, let me repeat: There is a tremendous need for true sustainability, it’s just that the practical measures implied by the coded marketing language are not sustainable at all!

In any case, scaring the people with the official narrative of the climate emergency definitely created a ripple in people’s consciousness and a degree of environmental anxiety, especially in Gen Z—but it didn’t do enough to either paralyze or mobilize. But when the virus came along, as if by magic, things started falling into places quickly—things that had been unthinkable before. No, I am not saying that the virus isn’t real. And I am not making any definitive statements about where it came from or how it came about. I have my theories but some things, I just won’t know, and can’t change. But what I know is that the reaction has been absurd, unprecedented, and strangely consistent with the action items that had already been on the agenda. Speaking of emergencies, Woodstock happened during a big pandemic…

So let’s see.

Did we forcefully move most activities—such as education, medicine, shopping, sex, and recreation—online for now, as we are working on “digitizing” the physical world, for easy tracking and surveillance?

Check.

Did we, despite the lockdowns for white collar peasants, continue with construction—including very robust construction of new telecom structures and cellular antennas, necessary to support the IoT?

Check.

Did we succeed at near destroying the livelihoods of many independent farmers who were competing with our new “edible” products, and also at disrupting the traditional food supply chains?

Check.

Did we also succeed at destroying a good number of small face-to-face businesses?

Well, of course!

Live music venues and theaters?

For sure.

Are we working on replacing law enforcement with AI?

You bet! Defund! Defund! Defund!

Are we trying to legitimize complete erosion of privacy and easy access to private health data?

Yes! Because health emergency.

Are we on target when it comes to tracking every movement of every person?

Contact tracing, yes! But some countries are still behind.

Is a digital health ID now required for international travel?

Yes, Common Pass is live!

Have we been able to disrupt political and legal procedures and create chaos?

Yes, Sir!

Importantly, have we succeeded at messing up human thinking and relationships to the extent that we, the robot, the abuser, are now everybody’s only friend?

Still working on it but close.

Are we well on target with prepping the people for a broad rollout of smart wearables?

Yep. Wear your mask.

Are we legally controlling people’s sex lives?

Yes!

Speaking of, state control of people’s bodies and sexuality is a classic sign of a religious reform. Whenever that happens, watch out.

Or let’s take lockdowns, for example. Lockdowns and restrictions of movement and physical contact are great tools of behavioral modification—and behavioral modification, also known as social engineering, is for sure a very respected art form among the powerful ones. A self-respecting social engineer plans ten steps ahead and creates situations in which targets beg for desired changes! I posit that currently, we are subjected to an involuntary S&M dance. We are in the middle of a ritual of designed to create a sense of confusion, insecurity, and dependence—eventually to be resolved by our Masters, for which we will be very grateful because we will just want to the unbearable tension to be resolved. Already, many have developed the Stockholm Syndrome, siding with the abuser. The measures are entirely arbitrary—but it doesn’t matter, we are expected to comply and to accept that our suffering and deprivation are for our own good. It makes us a “better person.”

In the eyes of a psychopath, there is no joy.

In the eyes of a slave, there is an acceptance of a strange feeling of numbness where the soul used to be.

Where do we go from there?

I, for one, don’t think that we should accept the darkness. I think that our best option is to insist on dignity and to find our hearts. Our hearts will tell us what to do next.

With US new coronavirus cases steadily rising  since mid-September, ushering in what some call the second wave of the virus pandemic, private jet traffic has soared as wealthy folks are leaving metro areas for rural communities, according to CNBC. 

Data from Tivoli, an online payments platform for jets, collected by Private Jet Card Comparisons, showed private jet flights at Francis S. Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, New York, jumped 172% in October. Flights at Aspen Airport in Aspen, Colorado, surged 135%, and Vail flights were up 95% over the month. 

Inversely, private jet traffic at New Jersey’s Teterboro Airport plummeted 52% in October. Teterboro is used by wealthy people to fly into New York City. Private flights at Westchester County Airport, another airport used by elites to fly into New York City, also registered a decline for the month, down 36%. 

Chicago’s Midway Airport saw private jet flights decrease by as much as 47%, while flights at Dulles International Airport, the second-busiest private jet airport in the country – saw flights nearly halved for the month. 

“The coronavirus pandemic is redrawing the flight patterns of America’s private jets, as airports in resort towns see big jumps in traffic while flights near cities decline,” CNBC noted. The reason is that wealthy folks panic bought homes in rural areas earlier this year to escape the pandemic. Now, as the second virus wave arrives, these folks are “bugging out.” 

Doug Gollan, the founder of Private Jet Card Comparisons, told CNBC this is “further proof that instead of being at their Park Avenue apartments, the wealthy are in the Hamptons or Aspen.” 

Gollan said corporate America is conducting business meetings at their homes, which has disrupted the typical flight patterns for business jets. 

“Instead of having a meeting in their office, a CEO will have a team fly to their home in the Hamptons or Aspen and have the meeting there,” he said.

In Nantucket, Massachusetts, airports observed a 28% rise in October, along with a 19% increase in Martha’s Vineyard. 

Gollan was uncertain if remote working would permanently change private jet flight routes, though, in the short run, there’s a noticeable change, he said. 

“There is going to be a direct correlation between Covid and the pace at which big offices reopen or don’t open,” he said.

Besides the virus pandemic, elites are jumping on private jets to their second and or third homes in rural communities ahead of the election, which could produce the next round of social unrest. 

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

This election season hasn’t been about Trump versus Biden.

It hasn’t been about capitalism versus socialism.

It’s not even about liberty versus authority.

As I said in my last article this election is about a simple choice, facing a chaotic future with courage or fear.

Regardless of who wins, my many libertarian friends and colleagues are correct that the ship of state cannot and will not be turned at this point in any meaningful way.

There are forces at work which will unleash hell on earth if Trump wins, which he should.

If the past four years have taught us anything it should have taught us that.

What’s on the ballot tomorrow is something much larger, however, because hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and Europe are facing an existential choice on both sides of the power dynamic.

The People sense the closing off of escape routes by an oligarch class that rightly sees their institutional power waning in the face of rapid decentralization of information.

Because of this, an inevitable power struggle has ensued. This election has taken on a quality that transcends the practical nature of elections — who will run the consensual hallucination that is the State.

The Davos Crowd is in full control at the moment in Europe and attempting The Black Revolution here in the U.S. They will enact as much of their Great Reset as they can and play every card in their hand and dirty trick in their bag to achieve it.

This election is a nexus, a singularity, that has become an opportunity for an inflection point in history, one where ideas that were forced into the fringe of the political discourse during the last cycle have the opportunity for a real audience in the next one.

And the question I have for libertarians is, “Are you ready to lead or are you going to sit aloof, arms folded, and miss your chance?”

From what I’ve seen so far it’s not promising.

Donald Trump is no Ron Paul, but, honestly, libertarian commentators were moaning about Ron in 2008 and 2012. He didn’t pass the purity test they said and he was encouraging people into the vortex of politics.

That was the wrong read then and it’s the wrong read now.

As Trump holds rally after rally around the country, bringing literally millions of people together a statement has been made.

Courage trumps fear.

Even Obama couldn’t pull crowds like Trump has. This is unprecedented in American politics.

I contend the symbolism of this election far outweighs all other considerations. There’s a spirit animating this election unlike any other I’ve witnessed because not of who Trump is but what he represents.

Earlier in the year, post-George Floyd, the picture was very different. It was much darker. BLM and Antifa, thanks to corporate sponsorship and billions in oligarch money, ran wild in the streets.

Dressed in black bloc, chanting slogans, throwing rocks, sucker-punching suburbanites and burning cities they took over the streets in a crude attempt to force change onto people already scared over a virus.

Videos of white people washing the feet of their new black masters were all over social media. Struggle sessions were brought to diners forced to eat outside thanks to stupid COVID-19 social distancing rules.

With government assistance (because communists can’t build anything of value on their own) they set up the CHAZ in Seattle and failed miserably in places like Atlanta.

All of these projects, however, lost their momentum the moment it became obvious Americans weren’t buying any of it.

They bought guns instead.

They may have bought guns out of fear, but they bought them anyway.

Marxism has been the dominant political philosophy of this past cycle, pushing the nascent ideas of extreme individualism to the fringe.

And it is reaching for the gold ring of ultimate power. The orgy of violence its adherents call for is here. There’s no avoiding it but it doesn’t have to become an all-consuming jihad against the human spirit like it has been in the past – think Cambodia, Vietnam, the U.S.S.R and, of course, Germany.

Millions of Americans saw this future and recoiled from it. Right into the arms of Donald Trump who preached faith in them.

That’s where these mind-blowing rallies, flotillas, caravans and spontaneous uprisings supporting Trump are coming from. Improperly harnessed, that energy can be turned into something truly ugly.

This should be the signal for libertarians to come down off their mountains and declare themselves ready to lead the restitution of culture and civilized behavior.

Marxism can’t bring anything except a few thousand paid agitators to politically-sympathetic jurisdictions to loot, steal and bully people.

The mere threat of liberty brings out millions to sing ‘God Bless America.”

Because the Trump movement is a celebration of that which should unite us — family, faith, community, dignity. After decades of the Marxists dividing us into ever smaller echo chambers we were supposed to be demoralized and beaten.

And judging from what I see from great thinkers like Robert Higgs I can only conclude they are just that, encouraging Ancaps to think this is a winning strategy.

An important message from the great Bob Higgs ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/oIsBTXKVZF

— Sal the Agorist (@SallyMayweather) November 2, 2020

This response is a defense mechanism of people without the capacity to lead.

Bob is right there are problems with Trump but where he sees dismay I see hope.

Why? Again, because this election isn’t about Trump or the State. It’s not about the nation. It’s about the assault on our communities, faith, family and sense of self.

It is an assault on the value of a human life.

And the question we are facing, imperfectly, is, “Are we the Last Man clinging to life like a barnacle in a violent sea or something greater; something with vitality, possessed with the spark of the creative, or even the divine?”

The people at those Trump rallies are anything but barnacles. And Twitter is full of supposed libertarians cynically reminding us that voting doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t, until it does.

For all his faults, Trump did what so many libertarians refuse to do, come off the mountain and lead. He could do this because Ron Paul motivated the people to declare they wanted some of what libertarians are selling.

In marketing terms these are ‘hot leads.’

And we don’t listen to them.

We talk at them, if not down to them.

We treat them exactly as Antifa and BLM treat those that don’t agree with them, as beneath them. People wonder why I hate the term, “sheeple.” Shouldn’t it be obvious? Because you don’t denigrate the people you’re trying to convince to buy what you’re selling.

So, my next question is, “Do you want to be right or do you want to help make a better world?”

If it’s the latter then realize the opportunity is here to direct that energy towards what comes next. What comes after the election will require leadership and skill. It will require patience, temperance and most importantly, courage.

It will require people willing to step up, be better and lead. And if you don’t like Trump’s leadership, fine. What will you do to counter it…. and posting memes on Twitter isn’t an answer.

Because even if we have the right ideas, we won’t be given that opportunity if we don’t first do the smallest thing we can do, stand next to them. Be a part of something not perpetually outside of it.

If that means voting, then vote. The symbolism should be clear enough.

It means stating without irony that the State is truly immoral but you voted anyway. Not because you love Trump, though he’s hilarious, but because you are willing to find common ground with people who you disagree with but who also stand athwart the tide of authoritarian control.

The people you are trying to persuade will respect you for that. The ideas you have will get a better audience.

I used to be that guy. I know what that looks like. Guess what? It looks an awful lot like despair.

And if that’s the best we libertarians have to offer, then this fight for the individual’s spirit, regardless of what happens in this election, is already over.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you want a guide through the post-election breakdown. Install the Brave Browser because Google sucks.

America hasn’t been this divided almost since the end of the “Reconstruction” era. President Trump has been labeled the most polarizing political figure of his generation. In certain areas, the red ‘Make America Great Again’ baseball cap simply cannot be worn without the risk of harassment or physical violence.

This has made many Trump supporters all the more stubborn about expressing their views, provoking confrontations and arguments at the table during family get-togethers.

In a recent piece published just one day before Election Day, Reuters spoke to 10 people who shared how their support for the president has impacted their relationships with family member.

One lifelong Democrat named Mayra Gomez, an immigrant to the country, told her 21-year-old son five months ago that she was voting for Donald Trump. In response, she says, he cut her out of his life.

Their last argument was so acrimonious, Gomez isn’t even certain whether their differences can be overcome.

“He specifically told me, ‘You are no longer my mother, because you are voting for Trump’” Gomez, 41, a personal care worker in Milwaukee, told Reuters. Their last conversation was so bitter that she is not sure they can reconcile, even if Trump loses his re-election bid.

“The damage is done. In people’s minds, Trump is a monster. It’s sad. There are people not talking to me anymore, and I’m not sure that will change,” said Gomez, who is a fan of Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants and handling of the economy.

Once upon a time, elderly family members relied on their children and grandchildren to run errands and help provide for them in old age. That social contract has now eroded to such an intense degree that many believe it’s too late now: the damage to the inter-generational relationship will be almost impossible to repair, even if Trump loses, few expect the animosity animating Trump and his supporters to fade quickly.

“Unfortunately, I don’t think national healing is as easy as changing the president,” said Jaime Saal, a psychotherapist at the Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine in Rochester Hills, Michigan. “It takes time and it takes effort, and it takes both parties – no pun intended – being willing to let go and move forward,” she said. Saal said tensions in people’s personal relationships have spiked given the political, health and social dynamics facing the United States. Most often she sees clients who have political rifts with siblings, parents or in-laws, as opposed to spouses.

Neighbors have turned against neighbors amid a flood of reports about lawn sign vandalism, and there has even been a surge in divorces:

Gayle McCormick, 77, who separated from her husband William, 81, after he voted for Trump in 2016, said, “I think the legacy of Trump is going to take a long time to recover from.”

The two still spend time together, although she is now based in Vancouver, he in Alaska. Two of her grandchildren no longer speak to her because of her support for Democrat Hillary Clinton four years ago. She has also become estranged from other relatives and friends who are Trump supporters.

Finally, a study by Gallup found that Trump’s third year in office set a new record for party polarization; as 89% of Republicans approved of Trump’s performance in office in 2019, only 7% of Democrats thought he was doing a good job.

Submitted by Christophe Barraud

Analysts look divided concerning U.S. new vehicle sales in October after they rebounded by 90.4% MoM since April (Wards data).

According to the Bloomberg consensus, they should rise to 16.50m(e) SAAR, up from 16.34m in September.

However, two out of four specialists I’m following closely, are betting on a sharp downward surprise in a context where the federal government’s CARES Act programs for the most part expired at the end of July and a new wave of coronavirus hit several states in cooler regions.

1- ALG, Inc., a subsidiary of TrueCar, Inc. projects “ total new vehicle sales will reach 1,307,998 units in October 2020, down 6.1% from a year ago when adjusted for the same number of selling days. This month’s seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR) for total light vehicle sales is an estimated 15.7 million units. ”

2- In the meantime, Industry consultants J.D. Power and LMC Automotive said “the seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR) for total new vehicle sales is expected to be 15.9 million units, down 0.8 million units from 2019, the smallest year-over-year decline since the pandemic began.”

3- At the opposite, Cox Automotive noted “the seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of sales is expected to finish near 16.4 million, up slightly from September’s surprisingly strong 16.3 million rate but down from last year’s 16.8 million level”

4- Finally, Wards Intelligence expects sales to reach 16.8 million SAAR.