Scamdemic - Corona Virus

The Unvaccinated Are Looking Smarter Every Week

2 Comments

by Thomas T. Siler, M.D. via American Thinker

There is a massive propaganda push against those choosing not to vaccinate against COVID-19 with the experimental mRNA vaccines. Mainstream media, the big tech corporations, and our government have combined efforts to reward compliance and to shame and marginalize non-compliance. Their mantra says that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Persons who choose not to vaccinate are characterized as unintelligent, selfish, paranoid people who don’t read much and live in a trailer park in Florida (or Alabama, or Texas, or name your state). Never has there been such an effort to cajole, manipulate through fear, and penalize people to take an experimental medical treatment.

However, as time has passed with this pandemic and more data accumulates about the virus and the vaccine, the unvaccinated are looking smarter and smarter with each passing week. It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus. Vaccine side effect data continues to accumulate that make the risk of taking the vaccine prohibitive as the pandemic wanes. Oral and IV medications (flccc.net) that work early in the treatment of COVID-19 are much more attractive to take now as the vaccine risks are becoming known, especially because the vaccinated will need endless boosters every six months.

First, let’s address the intelligence of the unvaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy is multi-factorial and has little to do with level of education or intelligence. Carnegie Mellon University did a study assessing vaccine hesitancy across educational levels. According to the study, what’s the educational level with the most vaccine hesitancy? Ph.D. level! Those can’t all have been awarded to liberal arts majors. Clearly, scientists who can read the data and assess risk are among the least likely to take the mRNA vaccines.

The claim that there’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated is, therefore, patently untrue. As a retired nurse from California recently asked, “Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?” If the vaccine works to prevent infection, then the vaccinated have nothing to worry about. If the vaccine does not prevent infection, then the vaccinated remain at some risk, and the unvaccinated would be less likely to choose a vaccine that does not work well.

The mRNA vaccine efficacy is very narrow and focused on the original alpha strain of COVID-19. By targeting one antigen group on the spike protein, it does help for the original alpha strain, but it is clear now it does not protect against Delta strain and is likely not protective against any future strains that might circulate. It also appears that the efficacy wanes in 4-6 months, leading to discussions about boosters.

Several authors have pointed out that vaccinating with a “leaky” vaccine during a pandemic is driving the virus to escape by creating variants. If the booster is just another iteration of the same vaccine, it likely won’t help against the new strain but will, instead, produce evolutionary pressure on the virus to produce even more variants and expose us to more side effects. Why, then, is this booster strategy for everyone being pursued?

This vast Phase 3 clinical trial of mRNA vaccines in which Americans are participating mostly out of fear is not going well. It is abundantly clear for anyone advocating for public health that the vaccination program should be stopped. Iceland has just stopped giving the Moderna vaccine to anyone which is a good step in the right direction. Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have banned the Moderna vaccine for anyone under the age of 30.

Anti-White Racism

Teaching National Values is Racist

Leave a comment


A London private school has added to its curriculum a module on “white privilege” that includes lessons ranging from public reaction to Meghan Markle’s Royal racism allegations, to why James Bond is always played by a white man.

The curriculum’s new element, which has reportedly been inspired by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, also questions why British prime ministers to date have been white. It also discusses “microaggressions” – apparently referring to actions that can marginalise people from minority backgrounds. Examples include touching a black student’s hair and not learning how to properly pronounce someone’s name.

The white privilege lessons start from Year Nine – when students are aged between 13 and 14 – at St Dunstan’s College in Catford, southeast London. The school, which charges up to £19,068 ($26,110) a year in tuition and fees, takes students from nursery on up.

Noting that the lessons were not intended to “engender a sense of guilt amongst our white community,” school headmaster Nicholas Hewlett told The Times that they would “help all our young people… to unpick and better understand the complexities and sensitivities of a real and live issue that matters to them and to so much of the society they occupy.”

According to Hewlett, teachers would “explore with students the difficulties faced by both Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton when they joined the Royal Family,” but would also learn that Markle “faced additional challenges based on social speculations associated with her race”.

During their now-infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey in March, Markle and husband Prince Harry revealed that an unnamed royal family member had asked about the skin colour of their then-unborn son, Archie. She also referenced questions about whether the child would receive a title and security like other royals.

In an unaired clip of the interview, later released by CBS, Markle also said her experience was “not the same” as that of Middleton, who was dubbed “waity Katie” by the British press in the years prior to marrying the heir to the British throne, Prince William. “Rude and racist are not the same,” she said. 

Other real-life examples reportedly referred-to in the school’s new course include an instance when Labour MP Dawn Butler, who is black, was apparently told by a fellow House of Commons member that the lift she was using was not for cleaners. It will also reportedly include an incident from last week, in which Tory MP James Gray was reported as saying that UK cabinet ministers Nadhim Zahawi and Sajid Javid, who are both of Asian ethnicity, “all look the same to me.”

However, Hewlett told the Daily Mail that the school’s addition to its curriculum had a “far more important” objective than determining what “white privilege is or isn’t.” Citing the risk of an “increasingly polarised society where different generations become entrenched in their positions of difference,” he said schools needed to tackle these issues by “helping young people hear different viewpoints and articulate their own thinking.”

The new lessons will also reportedly examine issues like “toxic femininity” and look at statistics comparing the stop-and-search rates of black and white people by law enforcement.

Last week, Tory MP Jonathon Gullis branded the term ‘white privilege’ as “racist” and “extremist.” He also called for teachers using the term to face a disciplinary hearing. Earlier in the year, Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch had noted that the phrase was “unnecessarily antagonistic” and should not be taught at schools.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Colin Powell: Vaxx-Caused Immunodeficiency

9 Comments

via The Expose

Latest UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid cases show that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people. Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week (between 2.7% and 8.7%). If this continues then 30-50 year olds will have 100% immune system degradation, zero viral defence by Christmas and all doubly vaccinated people over 30 will have lost their immune systems by March next year.

By a concerned reader

The 5 PHE tables below from their excellent Vaccine Surveillance Report, separated by 4 weeks, clearly show the progressive damage that the vaccines are doing to the immune system’s response.

People aged 40-69 have already lost 40% of their immune system capability and are losing it progressively at 3.3% to 6.4% per week.

Weekly Decline in doubly vaccinated immune system performance compared to unvaccinated people…

Everybody over 30 will have lost 100% of their entire immune capability (for viruses and certain cancers) within 6 months.
30-50 year olds will have lost it by Christmas. These people will then effectively have full blown acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and destroy the NHS.

The vaccine booster shots have to be the same as the vaccines themselves, because it takes forever to do clinical trials and get approval for something different. So if you take a booster shot, these figures show that you are giving yourself an even faster progressive form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (after a couple of months of effectiveness).

Table 2. COVID-19 cases by vaccination status…

Cases reported by specimen date between week 32 and week 35 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 33 and week 36 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018416/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_37_v2.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 34 and week 37 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 35 and week 38 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 36 and week 39 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

Pfizer originally claimed a 95% efficiency for their vaccine (calculated as in the last column above). The figures above indicate that their figures may well have been correct immediately after vaccination (the younger age groups have had the vaccine for the shortest time).

But the figures above also show that the vaccines do NOT merely lose efficiency over time down to zero efficiency, they progressively damage the immune system until a negative efficiency is realised. They presently leave anybody over 30 in a worse position than they were before vaccination

For more see here.

Western Hegemony's Collapse

The Reset = Agenda 2030 (Depop) + War Against China

Leave a comment

by James Tweedie

The CIA publicly announced the formation of a new special unit to spy on China last week, with agency director William Burns calling the Asian economic powerhouse the biggest ‘geopolitical threat’ to the US this century.

The Chinese armed forces’ daily newspaper has called for a “people’s war” against expanded CIA operations in the world’s most populous country.

The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported the comments from a post a social media account “run by” the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) were in response to the setting up of a new anti-Beijing unit by the Central Intelligence Agency.

“The US intelligence service, which is so blatantly recruiting special agents, must have more sinister and unbearable methods behind it,” the post on Weibo read.

But it warned: “No cunning fox can beat a good hunter. To maintain national security, we only need to trust the people and rely on the people.”

The account said a “people’s war” was needed to counter the US foreign espionage agency and “make it impossible for spies to operate and hide themselves”.

News of the CIA’s new China Mission Centre emerged on October 7. CIA Director William Burns called the people’s republic “the most important geopolitical threat” of the 21st century — comments which have been widely reported in China.

Leon Panetta, a former CIA director and defence secretary in Barack Obama’s administration, welcomed the unit’s formation.

“It’s no question that we really need much better intelligence on what China is up to,” Panetta told Politico last week. “China remains a very hard target to be able to penetrate, and for that reason creating that centre to establish a real focus on China makes sense”.

A video clip widely circulated by Chinese media in recent days alleged that the CIA was recruiting agents fluent in Chinese languages including Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka and Shanghainese.

Speaking to Chinese international news broadcaster CGTN last week, Deputy Foreign Minister Le Yucheng cast doubt on US President Joe Biden’s pledge not to “seek a new cold war” with Beijing.

“Internationally, the US has created one mess after another through ‘colour revolution’ and ‘democratic transformation’,” Le said.

The End is Here

The Green Agenda and Depopulation on a Massive Scale

2 Comments

By F. William Engdahl via William Engdahl

The price of energy from all sources conventional is exploding globally. Far from accidental, it is a well-orchestrated plan to collapse the industrial world economy that has already been weakened dramatically by almost two years of ridiculous covid quarantine and related measures. What we are seeing is a price explosion in key oil, coal and now especially, natural gas energy. What makes this different from the energy shocks of the 1970s is that this time, it is developing as the corporate investment world, using the fraudulent ESG green investment model, is dis-investing in future oil, gas and coal while OECD governments embrace horrendously inefficient, unreliable solar and wind that will insure the collapse of industrial society perhaps as early as the next months. Barring a dramatic rethinking, the EU and other industrial economies are willfully committing economic suicide .

What only a few years ago was accepted as obvious was that ensuring an abundant, reliable, efficient and affordable energy defines the economy. Without efficient energy we cannot make steel, concrete, mine raw materials or any of the things that support our modern economies. In the past months the world price of coal for power generation has doubled. The price of natural gas has risen by almost 500%. Oil is headed to $90 a barrel, highest in seven years. This is a planned consequence of what is sometimes called the Davos Great Reset or the Green Agenda zero carbon madness.

Some two decades ago Europe began a major shift to mis-named renewables or Green Energy, mainly solar and wind. Germany, the heart of EU industry, led the transformation with former chancellor Merkel’s ill-conceived Energiewende, where Germany’s last nuclear power plants will close in 2022 and coal plants are rapidly being phased out. This all has now collided with the reality that Green Energy is not at all able to deal with major supply shortages. The crisis was entirely predictable.

Green Chickens Come Home to Roost

With the widespread covid lockdowns of industry and travel in 2020 EU natural gas consumption fell dramatically. The largest EU gas supplier, Gazprom of Russia, in interest of an orderly long-term market, duly reduced its deliveries to the EU market even at a loss. An unusually mild 2019-2020 winter allowed EU gas storage to reach maximum. A long, severe winter all but erased that in 2021.

Contrary to EU politicians’ claims, Gazprom has not played politics with the EU to force approval of its new NordStream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. As EU demand resumed in the first six months of 2021, Gazprom rushed to meet it and even exceed record 2019 levels, and even at the expense of replenishing Russian gas storage for the coming winter.

With the EU now firmly committed to a Green Energy agenda, Fit for 55, and explicitly rejecting natural gas as a long-term option, while at the same time killing coal and nuclear, the incompetence of the think-tank climate models that justified a 100% CO2-free, electric society by 2050 has come home to roost.

Because financial investors on Wall Street and London saw the benefit of huge profits from the Green energy agenda, working with the Davos World Economic Forum to promote the laughable ESG investing model, conventional oil, gas and coal companies are not investing profits in expanded production. In 2020 worldwide spending on oil, gas, coal dropped by an estimated $1 trillion. That is not coming back.

With BlackRock and other investors all but boycotting ExxonMobil and other energy companies in favor of “sustainable” energy, one exceptionally cold and long winter in Europe and a record lack of wind in northern Germany, triggered a panic buying of gas on world LNG Markets in early September.

The problem was the restocking was too late, as most available LNG from the USA, Qatar and other sources that normally would be available had already been sold to China where an equally confused energy policy, including a political ban on Australian coal, has led to plant closings and a recent government order to secure gas and coal “at any cost.” Qatar, US LNG exporters and others have flocked to Asia leaving the EU in the cold, literally.

Deregulation of Energy

What few understand is how today’s Green energy markets are rigged to benefit speculators like hedge funds or investors like BlackRock or Deutsche Bank and penalize energy consumers. The headline prices for natural gas traded in Europe, the Dutch TTF futures contract, is sold by the London-based ICE Exchange. It speculates on what future wholesale natural gas prices in the EU will be in one, two or three months hence. The ICE is backed by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale among others. The market is in what are called gas futures contracts or derivatives.

Banks or others can speculate for pennies on the dollar, and when news broke on how low EU gas storage for the coming winter were, financial sharks went on a feeding frenzy. By early October futures prices for Dutch TTF gas had exploded by an unprecedented 300% in only days. Since February it is far worse, as a standard LNG cargo of 3.4 trillion BTU (British Thermal Units) now costs $100-120 million, while at the end of February its cost was less than $20 million. That’s a 500-600% rise in seven months.

The underlying problem is that, unlike the case for most of the postwar period, since the political promotion of unreliable and high-cost solar and wind “renewables” in the EU and elsewhere (e.g. Texas, February 2021) electric utility markets and their prices have been deliberately deregulated to promote Green alternatives and force out gas and coal on the dubious argument that their CO2 emissions endanger the future of humankind if not reduced to zero by 2050.

The prices borne by the end consumer are set by the energy suppliers who integrate the different costs under competitive conditions. The diabolical way EU electricity costs are computed, allegedly to encourage inefficient solar and wind and discourage conventional sources, is that, as French energy analyst Antonio Haya put it, “the most expensive plant of those needed to cover demand (marginal plant) sets the price for each hour of production for all the production matched in the auction.” So today’s natural gas price sets the price for essentially zero cost hydro-electric electricity. Given the soaring price for natural gas, that is defining EU electricity costs. It’s a diabolical pricing architecture that benefits speculators and destroys consumers, including households and industry.

A fundamental aggravating cause for the recent shortages of abundant coal, gas and oil is the decision by BlackRock and other global money trusts to force investment away from oil, gas or coal—all perfectly safe and necessary energy sources—to buildup of grossly inefficient and unreliable solar or wind. They call it ESG investing. It is the latest rage on Wall Street and other world financial markets ever since BlackRock CEO Larry Fink joined the Board of the Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum in 2019. They set up front ESG certifying companies that award ESG “politically correct” ratings on stock companies, and punishing those who do not comply. The rush into ESG investing has made billions for Wall Street and friends. It has also put the brakes on future development of oil, coal or natural gas for most of the world.

The ‘German Disease’

Now after 20 years of foolish investment into solar and wind, Germany, the once-flagship of EU industry, is a victim of what we can call the German Disease. Like the economic Dutch Disease, the forced investment into Green Energy has resulted in the lack of reliable affordable energy. All for an unproven 1.5C claim of IPCC that is supposed to end our civilization by 2050 if we fail to reach Zero Carbon.

To advance that EU Green Energy agenda, country after country with a few exceptions have begun dismantling oil, gas and coal and even nuclear. Germany’s last remaining nuclear plants will permanently close next year. New coal plants, with latest state-of-art scrubbers, are being scrapped even before being started.

The German case gets even more absurd.

In 2011 the Merkel government took an energy model developed by Martin Faulstich and the state Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) which claimed that Germany could attain 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. They argued that using nuclear longer would not be necessary, nor the construction of coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). With that, Merkel’s catastrophic Energiewende was born. The study argued, it would work because Germany could contract to buy surplus, CO2-free, hydro-electric power from Norway and Sweden.

Now with extreme drought and a hot summer, the hydropower reserves of Sweden and Norway are dangerously low coming into winter, only 52% of capacity. That means the electric power cables to Denmark, Germany and now UK are in danger. And to make it worse, Sweden is split on shutting its own nuclear plants which give it 40% of electricity. And France is debating cutting as much as one-third of its clear nuclear plants meaning that source for Germany will also not be sure.

Already on January 1, 2021 because of a German government mandated coal phase-out, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down. It lasted only 8 days when several of the coal plants had to be reconnected to the grid due to a prolonged low-wind period. In 2022 the last German nuclear plant will shut and more coal plants will permanently close, all for the green nirvana. In 2002 German nuclear power was source for 31% of power, carbon-free electric power.

As for wind power making up the deficit in Germany, in 2022 some 6000 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 16 GW will be dismantled due to the expiration of feed-in subsidies for older turbines. The rate of new wind farm approvals is being blocked by growing citizen rebellion and legal challenges to the noise pollution and other factors. An avoidable catastrophe is in the making.

The response from the EU Commission in Brussels, rather than admit the glaring flaws in their Green Energy agenda, has been to double down on it as if the problem were natural gas and coal. EU Climate Czar Frans Timmermans absurdly declared, “Had we had the green deal five years earlier, we would not be in this position because then we would have less dependency on fossil fuels and natural gas.”

If the EU continues with that suicidal agenda, it will find itself in a deindustrialized wasteland in a few short years. The problem is not gas, coal or nuclear. It is the inefficient Green Energy from solar and wind that will never be able to offer stable, reliable power.

The Green Energy Agenda of the EU, US and other governments along with the Davos-promoted ESG investing will only guarantee that as we go forward there will be even less gas or coal or nuclear to fall back on when the wind stops, there is a drought in hydroelectric dams or lack of sunshine. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize this is a road to economic destruction. But that’s in fact the goal of the UN 2030 “sustainable” energy or the Davos Great Reset: population reduction on a massive scale. We humans are the frogs being slowly boiled. And now the Powers That Be are really turning the heat up.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Current Events

CO2, Greenhouse and the Global Warming – Debunked

1 Comment

by Bill Roatan

CO2 molecules are roughly 1 out of every 2500 other air molecules. If all that CO2 were a blanket atop the atmosphere, then there would be a case to be made that CO2 has a greenhouse effect on the planet. As it is, CO2 is a heavy molecule and Brownian motion alone says that it will always be mixed in the atmosphere.

If a molecule of CO2 accepts heat, it is surrounded by 2500 other molecules that will take it away and those molecules will radiate the heat back into space since they are not greenhouse gas villains. Common sense says that if I heat up a ball bearing and throw it among 2500 other ball bearings, that the heat will travel from the hot to the cold. CO2 is no different.

It is the minuscule concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that makes the greenhouse gas argument a bit ridiculous. If there were a much higher concentration like the 9000 ppm millions of years ago, then it might have a measurable effect. There were animals back then that survived that concentration so claiming 400 ppm will lead to a runaway heating is just alarmism.

If one can logically come up with a rebuttal, I’d like to hear it. Appeals to authority will hold no weight as the climate scientists and the entire IPCC concept has been shown to be a fraud in numerous ways, not the least of which are the statements made by their own officials.

If there were only one CO2 molecule in the entire atmosphere, it would be ridiculous to claim that the greenhouse effect it creates has any measurable effect on the climate. If, on the other hand, CO2 comprised 100% of the atmosphere, it would be ridiculous to claim there was no greenhouse effect.

So, somewhere in between these two limits is where the effect of having CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact. It is a matter of CO2 concentration. No one has shown that the current concentration of CO2 is detrimental via experiment. The earth is not a black body and the dynamics the earth encounters were never included in any early experiments.

The models used by the climate frauds have never shown even the slightest correlation to historic records when they’ve tried to model what was already known and these people have an advantage over Tyndall and others from over a century ago in that they have computers and advanced knowledge the old timers never had.

I’m not denying the greenhouse effect. I’m denying that the modelers know how to use it in their projections and all they’re doing is alarmism due to sloppy science. They are also purposely fear mongering for a political agenda and they’ve been caught cooking the books on more than one occasion. They are simply not to be trusted.

The contention that a trace amount of CO2 gas at a .0004 level is responsible for what we currently record simply isn’t credible, especially when water vapor, an admittedly much more potent greenhouse gas is exonerated as a primary or even significant cause. It is TPTsB’s insistence of blaming CO2 and all the control and spending they insist on while simultaneously ignoring clouds that have been shown to be induced by cosmic radiation via Svensmark that simply smells like a giant swindle.

Purposely ignoring a far more potent GHG, water vapor, that is largely beyond our control, while concentrating enormous effort in demonizing the infinitesimal CO2 concentration and providing research funding almost exclusively for any and all that can help the scam along is, to me, a clear sign of a conclusion demanding that evidence be manufactured to support it and the climate scientist frauds have been paid handsomely to oblige.

One of the real head scratchers for me has been the hydrogen fuel nonsense as a panacea to replace fossil fuels. Any conversion of hydrogen via any oxidative process will produce H2O in the form of a vapor in a vehicle. I can just picture enormous clouds over cities produced by hydrogen use to produce more warming according to the current paradigm. What a farce.

That greenhouse gases exist, it has been known for a long time and that CO2 is one of them, that is not in contention. What is in doubt is that CO2 is the primary factor in any warming whether we currently experience, or not. There is absolutely no experimental evidence for the currently pushed view and I doubt one could be even honestly attempted given the chaotic and complex nature of the atmosphere, our incredibly limited understanding of it and, so far, the inability of the modelers to even come close to reproducing past events via computer simulation.

Climate science is in such a primitive state that any enunciation from that quarter isn’t worthy of serious consideration.

As I’ve stated above, very few people deny climate change both up and down in temperature. It’s the warming zealots that like to throw around the canard that people deny warming. What many deny is that CO2 is the recent cause.

The geologic record is full of temperature swings. To lay some specific and frightening significance to the last few decades in terms of warming is offset by the previous few decades of the “experts” worried about cooling. I think their limited time line granularity of view is a mistake.

As far as correlations are concerned, one does not make a strong case either way. Geology says we are at the end of an interglacial and actually overdue for a cold spell that has previously lasted on the order of 90,000 years. Here we have records in ice and elsewhere for a cyclical pattern that can’t be denied and that pattern precedes the appearance of humans on the planet. Yes, warming without humans, what a novel idea.

The fact that weak sun spot activity is historically correlated with multiple instances of severe cold spells, that there’s theory that states warming is the precursor to rapid cooling and we’re headed into a predicted low sun spot cycle points at a cooling world.

On the Road to Serfdom ?

Climate Warming? – Here Comes the $150 Trillion Scamdemic II

Leave a comment

via Zero Hedge

So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, “net zero”, green energy and ESG?

The reason – as one would correctly suspect – is money. Some $150 trillion of it.

Earlier today, Bank of America published one of its massive “Thematic Research” tomes, this time covering the “Transwarming” World, and serves as a massive primer to today’s Net Zero reality. The report (which is available to all ZH pro subs) is actually a must read, interesting, chock-full of data and charts such as these…

… and handy cheat sheets…

As report author Haim Israel writes:

This is the decade of climate action and COP26 will be the tipping point of the race to reach net zero emissions – the balance of reducing and removing carbon emissions from the atmosphere. To achieve it, a transition to clean technologies in all sectors at an unprecedented pace would be required, with the steering of governments and willingness of society. This is the last decade to act. Absolute water scarcity is likely for 1.8bn people, 100mn face poverty, and 800mn are at risk from rising sea levels by 2025. Climate migration could reach 143mn from emerging markets, driven by extreme weather.

None of that is new, of course – and while it is handy to have a centralized compendium of the data, a 5 minute google search can provide all the answers that are “accepted” dogma by the green lobby.

But while we don’t care about the charts, that cheat sheets, or the propaganda, what we were interested in was the bottom line – how much would this green utopia cost, because if the “net zero”, “ESG”, “green” narrative is pushed so hard 24/7, you know it will cost a lot.

Turns out it does. A lot, lot.

Responding rhetorically to the key question, “how much will it cost?”, BofA cuts to the case and writes $150 trillion over 30 years – some $5 trillion in annual investments – amounting to twice current global GDP!

At this point the report gets good because since it has to be taken seriously, it has to also be at least superficially objective. And here, the details behind the numbers, do we finally learn why the net zero lobby is so intent on pushing this green utopia – simple answer: because it provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded “investments” which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks.

Consider this: the covid pandemic has so far led to roughly $30 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus across the developed world. And yet, not even two years later, the effect of this $30 trillion is wearing off, yet despite the Biden’s admin to keep the Covid Crisis at bay, threatening to lock down society at a moment’s notice with the help of the complicit press, the population has made it clear that it will no longer comply with what is clear tyranny of the minority.

And so, the establishment needs a new perpetual source (and use) of funding, a crisis of sorts, but one wrapped in a virtuous, noble facade. This is where the crusade against climate change comes in.

[…]

Drilling down on the absolutely staggering costs, at an estimated $150 trillion over 30 years, boosting funding sources to $5tn a year is equivalent to the entire US tax base, or 3x the COVID-19 stimulus this decade. Here are the details:

The energy transition to a net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) economy by 2050 will be a very expensive exercise, estimated by the IEA at $150tn of total investment, over a period of 30 year. At $5tn p.a, the IEA see it costing as much as the entire US tax base every year for 30 years.

Not high enough for you? Hang on then because…

BNEF has a higher estimate that the total investment needed for energy supply and infrastructure could be as high as $173tn through 2050, or up to $5.8tn annually, which is nearly three times the amount invested on an annual basis today.

Next follows the obligatory pitch from BofA which is reminiscent of a stalinist kolhoz pep talk from the 1950s, to wit:

… But it can be done, with technology, economy, markets and ESG joining forces. Exponential cost reductions in wind, solar and batteries technologies have made renewables the cheapest form of energy in areas producing >90% of global electricity. Market appetite is chipping in too. Labelled bonds and loans jumped to > $3tn this year, with $3 in every $10 of flows into global equities going into ESG, which will support climate-friendly investments, as well as funding new ones needed to further decarbonize our planet like green mining, green hydrogen or carbon capture.

We leave the best for last because at the end of the day, this was always about more debt, and more monetization, a process which by now even the shoeshine boy knows makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Only this time the world’s wealthiest plan on robbing what little is left of the middle class under the guise of a noble crusade to defeat global warming… a crusade which will require over $500 billion in annual debt monetization by central banks each and every year, leading to hyperinflation in either risk assets or the broader economy, or both.

So if it sounds like “the crusade against climate change” is one giant con game meant to enrich a handful of kleptocrats here and now, while the nebulous benefits – and the all too certain debt and hyperinflation – of this revolutionary overhaul of the global economy are inherited by future generations, it’s because that’s precisely what it is.

[…]

And this is where we get to the punchline: as BofA admits, it’s all about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history!

We just see a peak of <1% additional inflation a year over a three decade horizon. Under more aggressive scenarios where central banks opt to absorb either half or the full decarbonization bills through quantitative easing, the risks of an inflation shock grow. Still, we think our third case is the most likely scenario, as it would be politically difficult to justify a much more expansive monetary impulse. True, while central bankers have expressed a desire to help green the economy, their corporate bond purchases have historically been restricted to crisis time policies through quantitative easing and remain well below purchases of sovereign debt. As such, any purchases of corporate green bonds would likely be limited both by the size of future purchase programs and their proportion relative to the overall corporate bond market, with slightly higher allocations under more progressive purchase policies that highlight environmental concerns

And there you have it: just as covid was one giant smokescreen to “allow” central banks and Treasuries to merge and lead us to Helicopter Money and MMT, creating some $30 trillion in liquidity in the process, the “Net Zero” myth is what will perpetuate this endless printing for the next 30 years, a period during which the only benefits will be bestowed upon those who benefit from QE and money printing. That would be the richest. As for everyone else, well you great grandchildren or their grandchildren may (or may not) live in a cleaner world. We really don’t know, but if we don’t start printing money now it will be too late.

If that sounds scarier and more manipulative than any religion in human history, it’s because it is.

The full 114 page report, which we recommend to anyone who wants to know what is coming, is available to pro subs in the usual place.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

MP David Amess: Stabbed to Death Because of His Opposition To Covid Vaccine Passports?!

Leave a comment
via SOTN 

Conservative Party Patriot & Member of British Parliament David Amess

SOTN Editor’s Note: What follows are excerpts from the Vaccine Passports Debate held by the British Parliament under the Chairmanship of MP David Amess.  All of his fellow conservative participants expressed extreme opposition to the vaccine passports, as well as effusive gratitude to Chairman Amess for overseeing the urgent debate.  David Amess was well aware of the dangers of instituting such a draconian COVID-19 vaxport system nationwide; and he was determined to permit a robust and unconstrained debate on the highly consequential matter.  Clearly his violent and shocking murder in a church serves to quickly chill any other MP opposition to the long-planned vaccine passports.  The New World Order globalist cabal has always targeted the United Kingdom as the first European nation to be foisted on the COVID-1984 plantation.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Et Tu, Russia? . . . Russia Is Rapidly Adopting QR Codes

3 Comments

The discussion about Russia’s role in the “Covid” and “post-Covid” world needs to be recalibrated to ensure that it is guided by evidence, not ideology

Riley Waggaman via: Russian Faith
 

“Formerly man had only a body and a soul. Now he needs a passport as well, for without it he will not be treated like a human being” — so observed a Russian exile to Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig some 100 years ago.

What would this nameless refugee say if he saw his country today?

In Sevastopol, restaurants, gyms and cultural venues are off-limits to those who cannot show proof of vaccination or prior infection, or produce a negative PCR test. Some parts of Russia are preventing unaccompanied minors from entering shopping centers; in other regions, the unjabbed elderly are allowed outside only to buy groceries, receive urgent medical care, take out the trash or walk their dog — provided they don’t wander more than 100 meters from their place of residence. Starting on November 1, the Republic of Karelia will deny routine medical care to the unvaccinated and those who cannot show that they are not “infected.”

Over the past two weeks, around one-third of Russia’s 85 federal subjects have announced that proof of vaccination, or Covid-negative status, will be required to gain entry to public institutions, venues and businesses. Such controls have been introduced by Kabardino-Balkaria, Chechnya, Perm Territory, Bashkiria, Udmurtia, Chuvashia, Tatarstan, Mordovia, Karelia, Komi, and Sevastopol, as well as by the regions of Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanovsk, Samara, Kaliningrad, Chelyabinsk, Sverdlovsk, Vologda, Smolensk, Amur, Pskov, Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Ivanovsk, Volgograd, Voronezh, Arkhangelsk, Kursk and Leningrad.

In the capital, workers in sectors such as education, entertainment, health care, transport and hospitality can be suspended indefinitely without pay if they decline the jab — a rule that has been in place since mid-June. Moscow authorities recently started mass-testing schoolchildren, and the city’s mayor, Sergey Sobyanin, is reportedly mulling the reintroduction of QR codes for restaurants. Digital passes had previously been imposed at the end of June but were dropped three weeks later after nearly 200 businesses went belly up.

Close to half of Russia’s regions now have compulsory inoculation policies for workers in public and private sectors. Their ranks seem to grow larger with each passing day.

When mandates were first introduced in June, several regions adopted rules requiring 60% vaccination for designated workforces. That figure has now been increased to 80% in many parts of the country. 

It’s not difficult to imagine where this strategy of gradualism could lead. The Leningrad region, which in June called for 80% vaccination across various sectors, recently announced that all employees of public and private organizations would need to get the shot. Those who refuse must present a negative PCR test every 72 hours. Proof of prior infection is also accepted but is only valid for six months. 

The Kremlin appears to be fully supportive of what’s happening. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on October 7 that “any measures that can encourage more people to get vaccinated are good.” A week later, Peskov lectured the 65% of Russians who remain unvaccinated, accusing the majority of the country of making an “irresponsible” choice that “kills.”

Many people are unaware of the Russian government’s position and incorrectly believe that inoculation remains entirely voluntary in Russia. We cannot fault them. The “alternative media” have either been completely silent on this subject or worse, have misreported what is actually happening here. Many outlets and analysts have gleefully relayed that Vladimir Putin opposes mandatory inoculation, or “declared” that the jab was voluntary. It’s true that the Russian president said that he doesn’t think anyone should be forced to get the shot, but this opinion has had no effect on actual policy; in fact, for months the Kremlin has been talking out of both sides of its mouth. 

On June 17, one day after Moscow announced its mandatory inoculation regime, Peskov explained that the “principle” of non-obligatory vaccination “generally remains,” but Russians are not proactive enough about getting the shot.

A day later, Anna Popova, the head of Russia’s consumer rights protection and human wellbeing agency (Rospotrebnadzor), described compulsory immunization as a “new tool” that can be utilized as the government sees fit. 

There is certainly a persuasive case to be made that a Russian living in the outskirts of Moscow will fare better than a New Yorker in the coming years, but the widely held belief that the Russian government is acting as a bulwark against the radical measures and controls being imposed worldwide should be carefully re-examined. Proper treatment of this question requires further investigation into a number of variables, including the vaccines themselves.

But we must start with understanding what is actually happening in Russia. It is concerning that analysis on this topic is so completely lacking in depth, when all available evidence suggests that Russians are being subjected to a slow boil. The policies embraced by the Russian government may seem benign when compared to the violent and unapologetic crackdowns in countries such as Australia, but this is hardly a consolation if the end result — the implementation of a digital ID that dictates all aspects of life — is the same.

The discussion about Russia’s role in the “Covid” and “post-Covid” world needs to be recalibrated to ensure that it is guided by evidence, not ideology. There is no excuse for weaving elaborate theories when the Russian government has been surprisingly upfront about how it sees events unfolding.

In all countries of the world, including Russia, life will become “less convenient” for the unvaccinated, the Kremlin’s spokesman predicted on September 30.

On this matter, we see no reason why we shouldn’t take the Russian government at its word.

 

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Small Victory: French Senate Rejects Mandatory Vaccination

2 Comments

A small but significant victory was achieved Wednesday when the French Senate rejected a socialist senator’s proposal to make the COVID experimental vaccine mandatory for all citizens living in France. Non-compliance would trigger a fine of 135 euro (about $150 USD), and 1,500 euro for re-offenders.

The rejection of the draft law (read below) presented by Senator Patrick Kanner together with several dozen other socialist members of France’s upper chamber did not come as a complete surprise.

One week earlier, the Senate’s social affairs commission had refused to adopt the proposition.

But Wednesday’s public vote, with 80 percent against making the injection compulsory for as many age groups as France’s Higher Health Authority would deem convenient, was a slap in the face to those who are already coercing people into getting the jab in order to enjoy the ordinary freedoms of life or to keep their jobs.

Only 64 senators voted for the bill and 262 voted against.

Compulsory COVID-19 vaccination is already the rule for health workers and first responders, who will need to prove their fully “vaccinated” status by October 15 or be suspended without pay, unemployment benefits or the right to work within their field.

To date, an estimated 300,000 of 2.7 million health professionals of every rank – according to numbers quoted by COVID “vaccine” opponents – have given up their jobs and careers.

They do not want to get a “vaccine” that works as a gene therapy, making human cells produce viral Spike protein, whose toxicity has been expressing itself widely through millions of adverse events in all stages of gravity — from fever and discomfort to serious illness and even thousands of unexplained deaths shortly after receiving the jab.

French Vaccine Police have been patrolling the streets of Paris enforcing a Virus Pass and slapping fines as high as 9,000 Euros.