WATCH: Creepy Bill Gates Just Posted Another Bizarre Video

WATCH: Creepy Bill Gates Just Posted Another Bizarre Video

This Time He’s Promoting Genetically Modified Corn To Save Us From A Famine During The Planned ‘Climate Crisis’

Gateway Pundit | By Alicia Powe Published September 22, 2022 at 5:25pm

Bill Gates published a new video promoting genetically modified corn.

Gates is featured in the video lip-singing song lyrics sung by a child as he stands in a kitchen wearing t-shirt emblazoned with, “Ask me about corn.”

“It’s corn!” Gates exclaims, as he takes a large bite out of a corn ear. “It has the juice!”

The 27-second video also features a  photo of Gates as a child holding a corncob in a corn field.

TRENDING: HUGE: GOP Lawmaker Obtains New Documents that Show Joe and Hunter Biden Working to Sell US Natural Gas and Drilling Assets to China – HAS WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO WILL TESTIFY (VIDEO)

Corn “accounts for 30% of the food consumed in Africa. But it is at risk. African crop researchers are creating a new, more resilient type of corn,” the caption on the video states.

WATCH:

he video is another attempt by Gates, the fourth richest person in the world and the top financier of the World Health Organization, to condition the public to accept the Great Reset agenda that he and his predator-class allies would like to impose on the world.

Read More

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Donald Trump on Schedule F Executive Order: ‘To Drain the Swamp We Need to Fire the Swamp’

Donald Trump on Schedule F Executive Order: ‘To Drain the Swamp We Need to Fire the Swamp’

Former President Donald Trump, at Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit, will speak about his schedule F executive order, which would allow him to “drain the swamp” by firing the swamp, according to Trump’s prepared remarks provided in advance of his speech to Breitbart News.

“To drain the swamp, we need to fire the swamp. With schedule F, I took executive action to make it possible to fire federal employees who are bypassing our democracy to advance wokeism and corruption,” Trump plans to say.

“We now need Congress to institute historic reforms to permanently empower the President to root out the Deep State, and ensure that any bureaucrat who is corrupt, incompetent, or unnecessary can be told, ‘You’re fired,’” the former President will assert.

Trump’s remarks will come one day after an Axios report claimed Trump is planning to use the executive order to fire close to 50,000 government bureaucrats if he gets reelected in 2024.

As Breitbart News detailed:

If reelected in 2024, Trump is planning to cut about 50,000 administrative state employees to rein in unelected technocrats in federal government agencies that have great influence over policies impacting American workers, according to the outlet.

The term administrative state specifically describes the phenomenon of unaccountable and unelected administrative agencies exercising power to create and enforce their own rules.

The administrative state uses its rule-making ability to essentially usurp the separation of powers between the three branches of government by creating a so-called fourth branch of government not created by the Constitution. Nearly 2 million federal government employees in federal agencies make up the administrative state. Trump has referred to the administrative state as the “swamp.”

Trump signed the schedule F executive order before leaving office in 2021, but President Joe Biden cancelled the executive order when he took office in January 2021.

Trump also plans to call out the “climate crisis hoax” at his Turning Point speech on Saturday evening:

First: we have to defeat the Climate Crisis Hoax once and for all. For decades, the left has made it a religious crusade to bully and scare young people into believing the world is ending because of climate change—or in the case of AOC, that the planet is doomed in just 12 years. This is a total lie.

The former President will single out Biden for his threats to declare a national emergency over the alleged climate crisis.

“This very week, the White House has even threatened to declare a NATIONAL EMERGENCY. But we don’t have a CLIMATE Emergency, we have an ENERGY emergency—caused by their climate fanaticism,” Trump will say.

“As we are now vividly seeing, the real threat to future generations is NOT Global Warming, it is the Green New Deal. Without abundant, reliable, and affordable energy, there is no civilization,” Trump will add.

Source

The Fatal Flaw Of ‘Don’t Look Up’

The Fatal Flaw Of ‘Don’t Look Up’

“Don’t Look Up” is confusing the battle lines of our culture war. It’s been panned by some critics and praised by others — unusual for a piece of progressive propaganda. (Normally those just get praised.) It depicts faith and family as the ultimate refuge in moments of existential dread. It’s proven popular despite boasting explicit ideological ambitions.

Let’s take the last point first. Adam McKay’s political work is sneering and heavy-handed, an unwitting parody of insular elites. But if you don’t read movie reviews or follow the film’s stars on social media, “Don’t Look Up” could easily hit you as a commentary on COVID or any dire geopolitical challenge — at least until the end of the film, at which point writers David Sirota (whom I admire very much) and McKay mostly discard with their surprisingly subtle pretense, that an apocalyptic comet is a stand-in for the apocalypse of climate change.

I think that might explain the film’s popularity, which is holding steady according to Netflix’s self-reported figures. With the country mired in existential dread, “Don’t Look Up” is generic enough to make for easy projection. Choose your own apocalypse and the film seems like a commentary on it. (Mine is TikTok.) At his worst moments, Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is eerily reminiscent of Anthony Fauci. “The Daily Rip” satirizes “Morning Joe.” President Orlean and Peter Isherwell are self-interested corporatists without a clear partisan bent. The whole plot is basically a thought experiment on human behavior in the face of certain catastrophe, and it gets a lot of things right.

Of course, it gets a lot of things wrong too. But McKay and Sirota are sharply critical of bureaucracy and clear-eyed about the follies of Big Tech’s anti-human humanism. It was genuinely shocking to watch the final moments of the film join the protagonists with prayer and family while the antagonists cope with sex, booze, and gossip. I think that choice says something profound, that a progressive attempt to predict human behavior in the face of apocalypse landed on such a stark dichotomy.

Similarly, the failure of Isherwell’s high-tech plan to risk humanity with a fool-proof innovation that would bring about material wealth actually serves as a pretty smart and topical rebuttal to Silicon Valley. As does the failure of his backup plan, which involves cryogenics and ends very poorly for the elites who freeze themselves into the future.

As a commentary on climate change, the film has a host of fatal flaws. The most obvious, of course, is that climate change does not pose an apples-to-apples threat of extinction like the movie’s Dibiasky Comet. We’ve had Michael Shellenberger on “The Federalist Radio Hour” enough times to understand the science behind “Apocalypse Never,” which holds up to scrutiny.

That’s one of the reasons “Don’t Look Up” substitutes a comet for climate. Quite simply, the climate threat is not as clear as the comet threat. This seems obvious, but it really renders the movie’s entire commentary on humanity’s failure to protect itself from the climate apocalypse patronizing and useless.

Even Nathan J. Robinson made this point in his defense of the film for Current Affairs, writing, “My first thought about the comet as a stand-in for climate change was that it would miss a crucial aspect of the climate crisis, which is that it is not like a planet-destroying asteroid, because some people will suffer far more than others. A great many people will be pretty much fine, at least in the near term, while countless others will experience the horrific effects.” That’s a pretty big problem.

And this is where the movie deals a fundamental blow to its own premise. The central tension in “Don’t Look Up” is not between experts and everyone else — it’s between experts and experts. In a world where Isherwell, the president, the media, and the political establishment insist their science will save the world, how are members of the public supposed to know they should trust DiCaprio’s Dr. Mindy? Indeed “Don’t Look Up” even satirizes the fake science special interests concocted to support their bottom lines and sucks Dr. Mindy into a Fauci-style hole of fame and prestige.

That would be fine if the film spared the public, but it doesn’t. MAGA-esque rubes are duped by Orlean and Isherwell into chanting “Don’t look up!” as a political slogan. Much of the world goes about business as usual. And why shouldn’t it? Even if we grant “Don’t Look Up” its exaggerated climate premise, is the public supposed to trust Dr. Mindy? “The Daily Rip”? President Orlean? Isherwell? Everyone in power claims the mantle of scientific authority.

I get why climate activists have a chip on their collective shoulder, it’s true our media is more corporatist than leftist, although on cultural issues those are increasingly the same. Robinson’s Current Affairs review echoes the complaints issued by his fellow progressive travelers, that bad reviews of “Don’t Look Up” are missing the point in the service of elites.

“Giving such a film a thumbs-up or thumbs-down and assessing the quality of its humor shows that one has missed the point entirely,” Robinson contended. That’s not a valid criticism of people whose jobs are explicitly to give films a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. You can walk and chew gum at the same time, as many of the ideologically sympathetic reviewers managed by granting “Don’t Look Up” its premise while questioning its quality. (The film got a lot of good reviews too, for what it’s worth.)

It does have some very cringey, very McKay moments. But it’s also surprisingly funny, like one out of every 20 “Saturday Night Live” sketches that actually makes you laugh. I didn’t expect that from McKay, especially on a topic this ripe to induce Hollywood smugness.

But where smugness is somewhat absent from the jokes, it’s embedded in the film’s premise. “Trust the science!” is not a serious mantra when none of the institutions invoking it deserve trust. “Don’t Look Up” gets that part right but can’t resist dragging the public through the mud. And that’s an instinct making our comets all the more invisible.


Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. She’s interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including “Fox News Sunday,” “Media Buzz,” and “The McLaughlin Group.” Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center and a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Source

New Research Shows 50-Year Binge on Chemical Fertilisers Must End to Address the Climate Crisis

New Research Shows 50-Year Binge on Chemical Fertilisers Must End to Address the Climate Crisis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The rising costs of synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilisers, triggered by a spike in natural gas prices, has governments panicking about a catastrophic global food crisis.[1] At the same time, new research shows that synthetic N fertilisers are a major driver of the climate crisis, responsible for 1 out every 40 tonnes of GHGs currently pumped into the atmosphere.[2] As the 26th UN Climate Change Conference gets underway, now is the time for the world to kick its addiction to synthetic N fertilisers and urgently transition to farming without fossil fuels and chemicals.

The new research– undertaken by three scientists working with Greenpeace, IATP and GRAIN– provides the first estimate of the global climate impacts of synthetic N fertilisers to cover the entire production chain, from manufacturing to soil application. It finds that the production and use of synthetic N fertiliser accounts for 2.4% of global emissions, making it one of the top climate polluting industrial chemicals. The synthetic N fertiliser supply chain was responsible for estimated emissions of 1,250 million tonnes of CO2e in 2018, which is roughly 21.5% of the annual direct emissions from agriculture (5,800 million tonnes). For comparison, the global emissions from commercial aviation in 2018 were around 900 million tonnes of CO2.[3]

The majority of emissions from synthetic N fertilisers occur after they are applied to the soil and enter the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N2O)- a persistent greenhouse gas with 265 times more global warming potential than CO2. But, what is less discussed is that almost 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions of synthetic N fertilisers occur in production and transport, largely in the form of CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels during manufacture. Added up, a full accounting of emissions from synthetic N fertiliser shows how it is a major source of climate pollution that needs to be rapidly and drastically reduced.

Synthetic N fertilisers have increased by a whopping 800% since the 1960s according to the IPCC[4], and the new research confirms that climate pollution from their production and use is on course to get much worse if actions are not taken to reverse these trends (Graphic 1). Worldwide use of synthetic N fertilisers is set to increase by over 50% by 2050, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The research also finds that emissions from synthetic N fertilisers are highly concentrated in certain geographic areas. The main emitters are China, India, North America and Europe. But, on a per capita basis, the highest emitters are the big agricultural export countries of North America (US and Canada), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay) Australia/New Zealand and Europe (Denmark, France, Ireland, Ukraine). Worldwide, emissions keep growing every year, including in Africa, where fertiliser use is now growing rapidly.

A not-so-green revolution

Since the 1960s, there has been a concerted effort on the part of the multilateral development banks such as the World Bank, governments, donors and agribusiness corporations to support the widespread adoption of a so-called “green revolution” model of agriculture. This model is based on the development and adoption of varieties of certain staple crops (mainly wheat, rice and maize) that are short and stocky (called semi-dwarf) and capable of producing high yields when heavily dosed with chemical fertilisers and sprayed with pesticides.

By way of massive government programmes and subsidies, the green revolution varieties quickly replaced local varieties and generated a huge boom in the global use of chemical fertilisers. They also kicked in a vicious cycle, in which more and more chemical fertilisers had to be applied to sustain yields. Today, only around 20-30% of the synthetic N fertilisers applied to fields are converted to foods, with the rest running off into water bodies and entering the environment as pollution.[5] Not only is this heating up the planet, but it is also destroying the ozone layer and causing a global crisis of algae blooms and oceanic “dead zones”.[6]

Some say the green revolution enabled production to meet the increasing global demand for food, but the narrow focus on a small number of crops and on varieties dependent on chemical inputs caused numerous environmental and social problems.[7] It also distracted from other approaches that could have increased food production without generating the massive consumption of chemical fertilisers. And it has left the world vulnerable to food price spikes and shortages triggered or exacerbated by rising prices for chemical fertilisers and their inputs, as we are now seeing with the energy crisis hitting many countries. Today, these agro-chemicals are controlled by a small number of global corporations that wield enormous political clout, such as the Norwegian nitrogen fertiliser giant Yara.

The fertiliser lobby has spent several decades maintaining that the excessive use of synthetic N fertiliser can be resolved through more precise application– what they call “precision agriculture” or “climate-smart agriculture”.[8] Yet the new research on synthetic N fertiliser emissions finds no evidence that programmes to increase efficiency have had any significant impact. In most world regions, there has been no significant increase in crop production per unit of synthetic N fertiliser applied (Graphic 2). In Canada, for instance, farmers participating in the fertiliser industry’s “4R Nutrient Stewardship Programme” have actually ended up using more fertilisers and using them more inefficiently.[9] Canada’s emissions from synthetic N fertilisers have accelerated in recent years, alongside use rates, making it one of the top emitters of greenhouse gases from synthetic N fertilisers on a per capita basis (Graphic 3).

Another key driver behind today’s excessive use of N fertilisers is the ongoing decoupling of crops and livestock. A growing percentage of the world’s livestock is now raised on factory farms, and feedlots that dependent on industrial animal feeds, often produced in other countries. As a result, those farms now growing feed crops utilise synthetic N fertilisers, rather than the animal manure that would have traditionally provided their fields with nitrogen. The separation of livestock and crops, and the concentration of export production in certain parts of the world, has broken the soil nutrient cycle, and greatly increased the use of chemical fertilisers.[10]

What needs to be done?

If the world stands a chance at effectively dealing with the climate crisis, industrial farming systems that depend on synthetic N fertilisers and other chemical inputs must be replaced with agroecological farming systems that do not use chemicals and local food systems in which animals and feed sources are fully integrated.

This phase-out of synthetic N fertilisers must begin by replacing the green revolution varieties of crops with seeds that can thrive without the use of chemical fertilisers. The seed companies that now dominate the global seed market have not and will not pursue plant breeding in this direction. As pesticide manufacturers, they have a vested interest in the green revolution model. Change has to come from revitalising and supporting the farmer-based seed and knowledge systems that are best able to provide seeds and practices adapted to local conditions and able to produce nutritious and abundant food without chemicals. Similarly, farmer knowledge of organic fertilisers and alternatives to building soil fertility, which has been lost to much of the world, needs to be rebuilt, shared and implemented so that the current dependency on chemical fertilisers can be overcome.[11]

A global phase-out of synthetic N fertilisers must also be accompanied by a phase-out of industrial livestock. Industrial feed, meat and dairy production is not only a major driver of synthetic N fertiliser use, but a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions and a major killer of forests and biodiversity.[12]

Technical and economic obstacles are not what is standing in the way of a global phase-out of synthetic N fertilisers. It is the hold of the agribusiness lobby on powerful governments that must be confronted and broken to affect meaningful change. The fertiliser industry, and its business and government allies, are peddling a false notion that emissions can be sufficiently reduced through a more precise application of fertilisers, without any major changes to the industrial model of agriculture and the structure of the global food system. This is simply not true, and a dangerous distraction from the industry’s ongoing efforts to ramp up fertiliser use, especially now in Africa.

Agribusiness corporations have a vested interest in the heavy use of synthetic N fertilisers– from the giant N fertiliser companies like Yara and CF Industries, to the seed and pesticide companies like Bayer and Syngenta, to the corporations that control the trade in meat, dairy and animal feed like Cargill and Bunge. The market for synthetic N fertilisers alone is worth over US$70 billion.[13] They will continue to promote and defend synthetic N fertilisers at all policy-making levels, including at COP 26.

People and the planet must come before corporate profits. There needs to be a global phase-out of N synthetic fertilisers if we are to end agriculture’s contribution to the climate and other ecological crises. That phase-out must start now.

Graphic 1. Consumption of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser from 1961 up to 2018, in tonnes of nitrogen

Graphic 2. Crop production (tonnes) per unit of synthetic N fertiliser applied

Graphic 3. Synthetic N fertiliser carbon footprint per capita (tCO2e/capita)

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

[2] Stefano Menegat, Alicia Ledo and Reyes Tirado, “Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture”, Research Square Preprints, 22 October 2021: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1007419/v1
[5] Billen, G., Garnier, J. & Lassaletta, L. The nitrogen cascade from agricultural soils to the sea: modelling nitrogen transfers at regional watershed and global scales. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci.368, 20130123 (2013).
[10] J. Wang, et al, “International trade of animal feed: its relationships with livestock density and N and P balances at country level,” Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 110, 197–211 (2018): https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9885-3
[12] Kate Dooley, Doreen Stabinsky, “Missing Pathways to 1.5°C”, Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance, 2018: https://www.clara.earth/missing-pathways

Source

U.S. Militarism’s Toxic Impact on Climate Policy

U.S. Militarism’s Toxic Impact on Climate Policy

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

President Biden addressed the UN General on September 21 with a warning that the climate crisis is fast approaching a “point of no return,” and a promise that the United States would rally the world to action. “We will lead not just with the example of our power but, God willing, with the power of our example,” he said

But the U.S. is not a leader when it comes to saving our planet. Yahoo News recently published a report titled “Why the U.S. Lags Behind Europe on Climate Goals by 10 or 15 years.” The article was a rare acknowledgment in the U.S. corporate media that the United States has not only failed to lead the world on the climate crisis, but has actually been the main culprit blocking timely collective action to head off a global existential crisis.

The anniversary of September 11th and the U.S. defeat in Afghanistan should be ringing alarm bells inside the head of every American, warning us that we have allowed our government to spend trillions of dollars waging war, chasing shadows, selling arms and fueling conflict all over the world, while ignoring real existential dangers to our civilization and all of humanity.

The world’s youth are dismayed by their parents’ failures to tackle the climate crisis. A new survey of 10,000 people between the ages of 16 and 25 in ten countries around the world found that many of them think humanity is doomed and that they have no future.

Three quarters of the young people surveyed said they are afraid of what the future will bring, and 40% say the crisis makes them hesitant to have children. They are also frightened, confused and angered by the failure of governments to respond to the crisis. As the BBC reported, “They feel betrayed, ignored and abandoned by politicians and adults.”

Young people in the U.S. have even more reason to feel betrayed than their European counterparts. America lags far behind Europe on renewable energy. European countries started fulfilling their climate commitments under the Kyoto Protocol in the 1990s and now get 40% of their electricity from renewable sources, while renewables provide only 20% of electric power in America.

Since 1990, the baseline year for emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, Europe has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 24%, while the United States has failed to cut them at all, spewing out 2% more than it did in 1990. In 2019, before the Covid pandemic, the United States produced more oil and more natural gas than ever before in its history.

NATO, our politicians and the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic promote the idea that the United States and Europe share a common “Western” culture and values. But our very different lifestyles, priorities and responses to this climate crisis tell a tale of two very different, even divergent economic and political systems.

The idea that human activity is responsible for climate change was understood decades ago and is not controversial in Europe. But in America, politicians and news media have blindly or cynically parroted fraudulent, self-serving disinformation campaigns by ExxonMobil and other vested interests.

While the Democrats have been better at “listening to the scientists,” let’s not forget that, while Europe was replacing fossil fuels and nuclear plants with renewable energy, the Obama administration was unleashing a fracking boom to switch from coal-fired power plants to new plants running on fracked gas.

Why is the U.S. so far behind Europe when it comes to addressing global warming? Why do only 60% of Europeans own cars, compared with 90% of Americans? And why does each U.S. car owner clock double the mileage that European drivers do? Why does the United States not have modern, energy-efficient, widely-accessible public transportation, as Europe does?

We can ask similar questions about other stark differences between the United States and Europe. On poverty, inequality, healthcare, education and social insurance, why is the United States an outlier from what are considered societal norms in other wealthy countries?

One answer is the enormous amount of money the U.S. spends on militarism. Since 2001, the United States has allocated $15 trillion (in FY2022 dollars) to its military budget, outspending its 20 closest military competitors combined.

The U.S. spends far more of its GDP (the total value of goods produced and services) on the military than any of the other 29 Nato countries—3.7% in 2020 compared to 1.77%. And while the U.S. has been putting intense pressure on NATO countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on their militaries, only ten of them have done so. Unlike in the U.S., the military establishment in Europe has to contend with significant opposition from liberal politicians and a more educated and mobilized public.

From the lack of universal healthcare to levels of child poverty that would be unacceptable in other wealthy countries, our government’s under-investment in everything else is the inevitable result of these skewed priorities, which leave America struggling to get by on what is left over after the U.S. military bureaucracy has raked off the lion’s share – or should we say the “generals’ share”? – of the available resources.

Federal infrastructure and “social” spending in 2021 amount to only about 30% of the money spent on militarism. The infrastructure package that Congress is debating is desperately needed, but the $3.5 trillion is spread over 10 years and is not enough.

On climate change, the infrastructure bill includes only $10 billion per year for conversion to green energy, an important but small step that will not reverse our current course toward a catastrophic future. Investments in a Green New Deal must be bookended by corresponding reductions in the military budget if we are to correct our government’s perverted and destructive priorities in any lasting way. This means standing up to the weapons industry and military contractors, which the Biden administration has so far failed to do.

The reality of America’s 20-year arms race with itself makes complete nonsense of the administration’s claims that the recent arms build-up by China now requires the U.S. to spend even more. China spends only a third of what the U.S. spends, and what is driving China’s increased military spending is its need to defend itself against the ever-growing U.S. war machine that has been “pivoting” to the waters, skies and islands surrounding its shores since the Obama administration.

Biden told the UN General Assembly that “…as we close this period of relentless war, we’re opening a new era of relentless diplomacy.” But his exclusive new military alliance with the U.K. and Australia, and his request for a further increase in military spending to escalate a dangerous arms race with China that the United States started in the first place, reveal just how far Biden has to go to live up to his own rhetoric, on diplomacy as well as on climate change.

The United States must go to the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow in November ready to sign on to the kind of radical steps that the UN and less developed countries are calling for. It must make a real commitment to leaving fossil fuels in the ground; quickly convert to a net-zero renewable energy economy; and help developing countries to do the same. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres says, the summit in Glasgow “must be the turning point” in the climate crisis.

That will require the United States to seriously reduce the military budget and commit to peaceful, practical diplomacy with China and Russia. Genuinely moving on from our self-inflicted military failures and the militarism that led to them would free up the U.S. to enact programs that address the real existential crisis our planet faces – a crisis against which warships, bombs and missiles are worse than useless.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from CommonDreams

Source

Global Economic Chaos? BlackRock and Citi Get on Board the “Climate Train”

Global Economic Chaos? BlackRock and Citi Get on Board the “Climate Train”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are some things that bring joy to my soul. My pleasures are simple ones. Peanut butter on toast (the food of gods), witnessing Macron getting a slap, and this…

The awesome thing here is that what is taking place is that our competition on bidding for coal assets has disappeared in a cloud of woke smoke.

This will quickly become geopolitical, and the question is this: can BlackRock, Citi, Prudential, HSBC, and their other woke mates decide the fate of nations?

They are already affecting the fate of nations. Witness Canada and all of Western Europe.

I found a live shot of their respective energy policies:

But will they do the same to China? Will they do the same to Russia?

The answer to that will only be fully revealed in the due course of time, but we don’t really need any crystal balls here as we just watch actions, not words.

“China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.”

Nearly all of the 60 new coal plants planned across Eurasia, South America and Africa — 70 gigawatts of coal power in all — are financed almost exclusively by Chinese banks”

We see all of this on the ground, and while it is taking place, formerly reputable media outlets such as the FT, Reuters, and Bloomberg tell us that: “China’s belt and road initiative creates a problem for China with respect to their climate goals.”

Really?

There is no conflict or problem. Let me explain. Here is what is transpiring. They will keep paying lip service to the woke ideology while capturing the bulk of the energy market, and by the time we all wake up, they’ll control the world’s energy and logistics chains. And once they’ve done that, they’ll be able to control the reserve currency and once they’ve done that… well, they will be the dominant power. Game over. At this rate they’ll get there in a frighteningly rapid period of time. No more than a couple of decades.

BlackRock

Source: International Man

Every week I find myself saying to myself “I just can’t believe this sh**t I am reading.” It is the same old story. The West see themselves as above the East and that the West (North America and Europe) can dictate to the rest of the world what they must do.

From the BlackRock article:

“BlackRock Inc. and other major financial institutions are working on plans to accelerate the closure of coal-fired power plants in Asia in a bid to phase out the use of the worst man-made contributors to climate change.

“The world cannot possibly hit the Paris climate targets unless we accelerate the retirement and replacement of existing coal-fired electricity,” Don Kanak, chairman of Prudential’s insurance growth markets division, said in a statement. “This is especially in Asia where existing coal fleets are big and young and will otherwise operate for decades.””

So shut down coal fired power stations, and pray tell, what are you going to replace them with? How will this affect their standards of living?

Let’s put some numbers behind this to understand probabilities. China has a massive industrial sector. So massive it currently consumes 4x more primary energy than its transport sector and more primary energy than all of the US and European industrial sectors COMBINED. So, it’s big.

Will the CCP willingly negatively impact this sector whereby it threatens China’s growing lead in the global economy and, hence increasing global political influence? I’ll let you be the decider.

In contrast to the US, China uses 10x more coal than natural gas. In 2020, China built over 3x as much new coal capacity as all other countries combined, equal to one large coal plant PER WEEK. In fact, in 2020 alone China’s fleet of coal fired power plants was expanded by a net 29.8 GW.

Think that’s a lot? In 2020 they commissioned 73.5 GW of new coal plant proposals, which is over 5x that of the rest of the entire world combined.

Editor’s Note: The 2020s will likely to be an increasingly volatile decade. More governments are putting their money printing on overdrive. Negative interests are becoming the rule instead of the exception to it.

One thing is for sure, there will be a great deal of change taking place in the years ahead.

That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Source

A Call for Mother Earth and Humanity. Analysis of “Military Geoengineering”

A Call for Mother Earth and Humanity. Analysis of “Military Geoengineering”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Why do people not want to know about the violence that is committed against Mother Earth?

Is it a taboo to reveal a secret? For instance, Dr Rosalie Bertell’s research about geoengineering has to this day still not been properly debated in public. Not only the powers that be, but also the social movements of today have not allowed this to happen. Very often, people reject radical new thoughts right away because they are too shocking for them. A first reaction typically consists of ignoring them instead of trying to learn and do something about these perilous matters. Most people simply deny the possibility that something like ‘military geoengineering’ may even exist. In an effort to avoid confronting these uneasy truths, they repeat the term prepared by those in power who want to do away with this sort of ‘evil knowledge’ and call it a ‘conspiracy theory’.

But we do need to confront the facts about the system we live in, which in itself is based on different forms of direct and structural violence against life itself, against nature and against human beings. This truth is a secret and thus it has become a taboo to speak about it. Whenever this taboo is violated, there is always a prompt and often violent reaction to stop any further discussion.

Of course, we know what the violence of our system – our ‘modern civilization’ – is based on. It is rooted in ‘patriarchy’, as I name it in my critical theory approach. The intention of patriarchy is to change all of life, nature and humanity, in fact the entire world into a ‘man-made’, artificial one, that is not allowing life to exist any longer in its organic, natural and motherly ways on Planet Earth.

This man-made world is by definition a pater-arché one, a ‘creation’ of so-called human fathers instead of human mothers together with Mother Nature. During the time to reach this patriarchal utopia, which is several thousands of years old, much violence has already been applied. This violence has turned into trauma, but at the same time, it is considered ‘forbidden knowledge’ and is suppressed. It has been hidden on all levels and cannot be addressed openly. And as long as this patriarchal ‘civilization’ has not totally succeeded in transforming life, nature, humans, the whole world – and the Planet itself – into a completely man-made world, more violence will continuously be applied as a necessary means of achieving its dangerous end goals.

This paradox is the secret of patriarchy. Because the patriarchal narrative tells us that there is no violence in the transformation process from the natural to the artificial – the machine – we are also always told that the result will be superior. It is called progress! But the secret we must reveal tells us that violence does not lead to the better and improved worlds we are promised, but to what it actually produces: destruction!

Destruction is the overall outcome of this ‘alchemical’ – as I call it – transformation process through violence. This is its logic, but nobody is allowed to name it. This is the ‘evil’ knowledge, the forbidden one, the forgotten one, the knowledge driven into the underground and thus made subconscious. I call it ‘the collective subconscious’.

Understanding this makes it clear how difficult it is to acknowledge what Rosalie Bertell is teaching us. She teaches us that patriarchy in the form of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), has started to destroy our living conditions and the Planet itself. I believe we are forced to do something against this, if we want to continue living on this earth. This means that we have to address patriarchy and its systemic, direct and structural violence, running the risk of becoming the ones who break the taboo.

My personal experience with breaking the taboo of this syndrome of avoidance and fear that we can see repeated today in the case of the worldwide Coronavirus Crisis, has led me to found the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.

This is how it happened: after an interview for a newspaper about the necessity to do research into a possible crime, namely the eventual participation of military geoengineering, mentioned by the Venezuelan president, the Russian Duma and others, that had led to the death of a quarter of a million people – the Haitian earthquake in 2010. Just for quoting those sources I was immediately called a ‘conspiracy theorist’. As a result I was publicly ‘murdered’ and discredited, robbed of my good reputation as an academic, an activist, a person and a woman. I was threatened by the Deep State and the Institute of Political Science at the University of Innsbruck where I had worked for more than 20 years. The official Austrian media threatened me – being instructed from above, as I was informed by a whistleblower. I lost many of my friends, even very old ones, from the left wing, the green and other alternative movements, even from matriarchy groups in Germany and Austria, with whom I had been working for many years. I lost publishers I used to work with, and I was never again invited for interviews or talks in the mainstream and even most of the alternative press.

This is an indication of the deep hatred of the patriarchal system against life and truth, the real knowledge that is now emerging everywhere. It shows patriarchy’s need to cover up the truth, as quickly and as brutally as possible, by using its paid defenders. This experience changed my life, as I did not run away or go into hiding to atone for my alleged sins. On the contrary, I then started my own research on geoengineering which had not been an issue for me until then.

The Haitian case had put me on the road to Rosalie Bertell´s knowledge that was completely unknown to me. With the help of her research I learned how to explain what might have really occurred in Haiti – and not only that, but much more. I wished that I had been wrong, but I wasn´t.

During these experiences of change in my life, I became ill. When I emerged from the hell Rosalie had opened for me, I had to decide what to do: either stopping to do anything at all, or starting anew – and with exactly those issues the social environment around me tried to suppress. I decided to do the latter. Otherwise, we would not celebrate the tenth birthday of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth in 2020.

I chose this option because there was no alternative. I had felt the same tremors in my body as Mother Earth must have felt in her body during the earthquake. It was as if She was calling me, and loudly so. She said: “Yes, you are the one. You have to stand up for me, as you now know what it feels like what is being done to me! Someone has to do it! This is the moment …”

Knowing already what this decision of mine meant, I began my new life. I informed my friends overseas who – contrary to those in Europe – were full of solidarity and support. They started a campaign for me that passed through many parts of the world, as I had done research in earlier years in different places and had many colleagues from social movements in many countries. It was wonderful and it gave me strength so that I could move on. The people of Haiti, however, probably never knew about this debate that began after their disastrous experience. Even the NGOs kept it away from them.

At a large women´s congress in Germany in May 2010, I spoke about Rosalie Bertell’s book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War which deals with geoengineering and proposed founding the PMME in order to distribute her knowledge. Hundreds of women applauded in agreement, and we began organising this movement from Austria.

The first and most important task was to translate Bertell’s book into German and publish it. We found a good translator, we got enough donations to pay for this work, and Rosalie sent us the new texts she had written after the first publication of her book in 2000. However, we could not find a publisher! It felt like a boycott on all levels. When we finally found one and succeeded in publishing Bertell’s work in German, at the end of 2011, there was a second wave of hatred, discrimination and defamation occurring that appeared to me as if some people wanted to take revenge for being unable to prevent us from publishing Bertell’s research. So I had to stand up to this new wave of insulting personal and fierce political attacks.

In amazing ways, however, we then gained new friends all over the world. Ever more people and groups became active in relation to geoengineering issues. Rosalie considered it an obligation for all of us to fight for Mother Earth as we are her children. Where did she gain her power and energy from to do this work by herself? Her ‘dynamo’ surely was her immense and deep love for Mother Earth, our beautiful fantastic planet that gives us everything we need. So, things were very clear for her. And things should be very clear for us, as well.

Rosalie Bertell had developed early on what I call a ‘planetary consciousness’. My experience in these difficult last ten years with the PMME taught me the same. I learned to love the Earth much more than I could have imagined, I learned about her as a huge cosmic living being, I learned to listen to her, to trust her, and to accept her power as mine as well. Because, the power to go on with this struggle stems from Her – not from patriarchy, of course.

Over these years, I learned that if we want it, we can establish a real relationship with the earth and ask her: “What can we do? What should we do? Please tell us what to do and what not to do?” For example, what should we give up?

I strongly believe this is the answer to the panic, anxiety and fear that reaches us when we start to speak about the systemic violence of patriarchy. The time has come to stop this destructive way of life. The time has come to change from the patriarchal hatred of life to the love of life again – which is the natural attitude of human beings. We have to re-awaken this love, so we become aware and develop a planetary consciousness.

Love should be the ‘virus’, the ‘dis – ease’ that ‘contaminates’ us all – to be open to the power of love for, from, and with our Mother Earth! What else can we do? There is no alternative!

If we look around, we see always more weaponry – not CO2! – threatening the earth, her climate, the ozone layer, her cycles and all life. Together with a ‘weaponization’ through mind control and neuroscience, 5G, artificial intelligence, digitisation, nano- and biotechnologies, geoengineering belongs to the fourth Industrial Revolution that has been proclaimed to build our future – or our no-future – in the twenty-first century. These technologies are already producing ‘lock-downs’ from above, from space, as well as from below. They are meant to use our bodies and brains, and I don’t think all of us are supposed to survive this process of becoming the ‘bio’-part of what I call the megamachine – the new global form of totalitarianism.

The problems we are confronting are all related to each other. The laissez-faire attitude towards the question of technology being welcomed as progress has to stop. There is a need to really look at patriarchy, the intentional destruction of the world including us humans. The vaccines against COVID-19 intending to turn us into genetically modified zombies with implanted chips and nanobots, are in the process of application right now. They are intended to lead us towards ‘transhumanism’, the end of mothers and of humanity.

This is my Call!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.

She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Bertell, Rosalie. 1985. No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. London: The Women’s Press

_____ 2011, 2013, 2016, 20^18, 2020: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 5 editions, Gelnhausen, J. K. Fischer Verlag

_____2020. Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War. Enhanced edition, Dublin: Talma Studios International.
Forschungsinstitut für Patriarchatskritik und alternative Zivilisationen. < www.fipaz.at >
Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde.

von Werlhof, Claudia. 2011. The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a ‘Deep’ Alternative. On ‘Critical Theory of Patriarchy’ as a New Paradigm. Frankfurt/New York, Peter Lang.

_______ 2011: Die Verkehrung. Das Projekt des Patriarchats und das Gender-Dilemma, Wien, Promedia

_______ 2012: Der unerkannte Kern der Krise. Die Moderne als Er-Schöpfung der Welt, Uhlstädt-Kirchhasel, Arun

_______ 2015: Madre Tierra o Muerte. Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca, Cooperativa El Rebozo, México

_______ 2014: Nell´ Etá del Boomerang. Contributi alla Teoria critica del patriarcato, Milano, Unicopli

_______ 2021: Väter des Nichts. Zum Wahn einer Neuschöpfung der Welt, 2 Bde, Höhr-Grenzhausen, zeitgeist, forthcoming.

_______(Ed.). 2021. Global Warning! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet. Dublin: Talma Studios International, forthcoming.

Featured image is from Media Lens

Source

The Great Reset, “The Green New Deal” and Today’s Bankrupt World Economy

The Great Reset, “The Green New Deal” and Today’s Bankrupt World Economy

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In my last article, I discussed the new Post-COVID task force which is being spearheaded by Canada’s New Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and her fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in preparation for the upcoming COP26 Summit in the UK where it is hoped a Green New Deal may be unveiled as part of a Great Global Reset.

In that location, it was made clear that Green Bonds play an important role in the financing of green energy grids which some technocrats hope will straddle the globe in order to reduce Carbon dioxide output to pre-industrial levels in an effort to reduce global climate by 1.5 degrees by 2050.

Echoing this agenda, creepy population control guru once known for his software-stealing savvy named Bill Gates stated that

“Some governments and private investors are committing the funding and the policies that will help us get to zero emissions, but we need even more to join in. And we need to act with the same sense of urgency that we have for COVID-19.”

The Devil in the Details

The problem with this reset isn’t that the orchestrators of this pending reform desire a new system of value beyond the “monetarist/anything goes” standards of free markets which have dominated our world under decades of globalization. We obviously need that since worshiping money on the unregulated markets just created a massive volatile bubble underlying a $1.5 quadrillion financial weapon of mass destruction called derivatives waiting to blow up.

The problem isn’t found in moving the nexus of economic regulation and planning back to governments which the Green New Dealers wish to guide the new world economic order. We obviously need that too, and the fact that the greatest rises in wealth and living standards historically occurred during periods when this sort of dirigiste approach was active should not be lost on anyone. If you have any doubts of this claim, then I refer you to Martin Sieff’s excellent analysis of Bismarck and the Failure of the UK’s NIS.

The problem is that the standards of value which proponents of the New Green New Deal believe we must re-align our behavior to, have the peculiar characteristic of undoing human activity entirely under the guise of “monetizing the rate of reduction” of humanity’s carbon footprints.

This may seem paradoxical at first, but I ensure you this is exactly what is being sold to the credulous masses desperately seeking something new, stable and moral to guide our society out of the oncoming storms set to befall us. In order to get a visceral image of the tragedy: imagine a sick patient being convinced by a quack doctor that they need only endeavor to a little more bloodletting in order to be healed of their ills. Or imagine that an obese patient is told that their path to health is to be found not in proper eating and exercise but rather in contracting their belt size incrementally from a 48 inches to an 8 inch waist size.

This is what a world covered in windmills, solar panels, biofuels, green financing, and decarbonization will offer us.

Windmills vs Nuclear

Where it would take approximately 17 600 acres of land covered with windmills to produce about 1200 megawatts of power, the equivalent 1200 megawatts derived from nuclear sources would take up an area no larger than several city blocks. Quantitatively identical, the qualitative factor of difference of energy flux density of either source is even more dramatic. Where nuclear power can easily power a society’s industrial and consumer needs, a windmill farm’s energy output is of such a low flux density that it cannot even make another windmill.

While I am not a fan of the misanthropic undertones of Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans, it did successfully demonstrate the total failure of green energy fantasies in a variety of ways.

Green bonds which would be issued through a mix of private banks and national infrastructure banks under a Green New Deal reset would be tied to long term large scale green infrastructure projects that would prohibit humanity from ever actually building the sorts of mega projects we once built during the days of the actual New Deal of the 1930s (ie: Tennessee Valley Authority, hydroelectric programs) or the current New Deal of the 21st century known as China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The Real New Deal vs the Green New Deal

The reality is that the solutions for a real New Deal reorganization of today’s bankrupt world economy are available to us and would involve many of the mechanisms which Green New Dealers like Soros, Gates, Carney etc.. are proposing with one vital difference.

Rather than lower humanity’s productive powers of labor as the Green New Deal proposes, the new system of productive credit which must be created out of the ashes of the currently collapsing order should be premised upon:

1) A respect of national sovereignty under a win-win system of cooperation and NOT a system of supranational technocratic controls under the rule of a bankers’ dictatorship. This is the foundation of the multipolar alliance that Presidents Xi and Putin have defended for years and which an America freed of the likes of Pompeo and other China-bashing neocons may yet tap into.

2) Large scale, long term infrastructure projects which uplift the standards of living of all people, as well as the cognitive powers of all people and the productive powers of labor of all people simultaneously. To illustrate what this looks like, inspect the effects of the New Silk Road across Eurasia and Africa over the past 5 years.

3) That this process has the natural effect of increasing national capital and consumer consumption per capita and per square kilometer (since higher quality lives lived longer equates to higher rates and quality of consumption both individually and nationally). A viable modern guidebook to explore this system scientifically can be found in the writings of the late American economist Lyndon LaRouche with a focus upon his 1984 book So You Wish to Learn All About Economics and short accompanying video The Power of Labor.

Taken together, these three variables would tend towards an increase of humanity’s carrying capacity conditional upon the factor of something ivory tower mathematicians and computer modellers dominant in today’s econometric and climate science worlds detest: HUMAN CREATIVE REASON.

The Role of Creative Thought in Economic Systems

Abraham Lincoln understood this fact all too well 170 years ago when he said in 1860“Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions.”

This idea was amplified by Lincoln’s leading economic advisor Henry C. Carey who said in 1872:

 “The more his power of association, the greater is the tendency toward development of his various faculties; the greater becomes his control of the forces of nature, and the more perfect his own power for self-direction; mental force thus more and more obtaining control over that which is material, the labors of the present over the accumulations of the past…”

If you haven’t noticed it, both Lincoln and Carey recognized that it is by increasing rates of discoveries of unknown organizing principles of the universe which allows our species to translate those new discoveries into greater rates of scientific and technological progress. This overcoming of our limits to growth by leaping to new technologies and resources would then establish a guiding framework for planning future investments into R & D with a focus on activities that push the frontiers of human knowledge with an emphasis on space exploration in the macrosmos and discovering the geometries of the atom (and the relationship of matter to energy) on the microcosmos.

This process embodied by Lincoln and Carey was once known far and wide as the “American System” and it isn’t a coincidence that EVERY SINGLE American president who died while in office (eight in total) were supporters of this system.

The Origins of the American System

During the crisis of 1783-1791, The newly established American republic was an agrarian economy in financial ruins with no means to pay off its debts or even the soldiers who fought for years in the revolutionary war. It was only a matter of time before the fragile new nation would come undone and be reabsorbed back into the fold of the British Empire.

The solution to this unsolvable crisis was unveiled by Washington’s former Aide de Camp and now Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton who studied the works of the great dirigiste economists like France’s Finance Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, and introduced a four-fold solution:

  • Consolidate all unpayable state debts into a singular federal debt secured by the issuance of new bonds. This was done via his 1790 Report on Public Credit.
  • Tie these new bonds to internal improvements like roads, canals, academies and industrial growth which would create a qualitatively new form of debt that would permit the nation to produce its way out of poverty which would lead to “the augmentation of the active or productive capital of a country”. In this sense Hamilton distinguished bad debt from good debt using the important guiding principle that the “creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.” [to illustrate this more clearly: think of a farmer taking on a debt in order to feed a gambling addiction vs investing his loan into new farm supplies and a tractor.] The thrust of this conception was found in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures of 1791.
  • Guide that new national power over finance by a system of national banks subservient to the Constitution and the General Welfare (instead of a system of central banks under the British model that ensured nation states would forever be subservient to the laws of usurious finance). This was illustrated in Hamilton’s 1790 Report on a National Bank and his 1791 On the Constitutionality of a National Bank.
  • Use protective measures where necessary to block foreign dumping of cheap goods into the nation from abroad which essentially makes it more profitable to purchase industrial goods and farm products locally rather than from abroad. Hamilton also promoted federal incentives/bounties to encourage private enterprises to build things that would be in alignment with the national interests.

Throughout all of his works, Hamilton is clear that value is not located in land, gold, money, or any arbitrary value favored by followers of the British School like Adam Smith. In defending the growth of manufactures and internal improvements, Hamilton states that “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.”

The Overthrow of the American System

Although City of London-affiliated traitors in America like Aaron Burr established the speculative Bank of Manhattan which started Wall Street, killed Alexander Hamilton in 1804, and derailed many of Hamilton’s grand designs, the system was never completely destroyed despite the decades of attempts to do so. In 1824, the great German economist Frederick List came to America with the last surviving leader of 1776 Marquis Lafayette as part of an international effort to revive the sabotaged plans to create a world of sovereign republics modelled on the American experience of 1776.

While this effort failed with Lafayette’s supplication to the scheme of re-instating a French King in 1830 rather than declare himself the President (as I outlined in my recent paper on the Congress of Vienna), List studied Hamilton’s system and was the first to codify it as the American System of Political Economy (1827). This was the system which List transported to Germany by driving rail development, industrial growth, protectionism under the German Zollverein which finally blossomed under the rule of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

List’s system was also studied, translated and applied in Russia by many “American System economists” with the greatest being the Transport Minister and Prime Minister Sergei Witte who oversaw the trans Siberian railway’s completion and envisioned a line eventually connecting the Americas to Russia via the Bering Straits.

In America, the clash between American vs British Systems defined all major conflicts from 1836 when a drunken racist named Andrew Jackson killed the 2nd National Bank (along with thousands of Cherokee) and brought the nation under the heal of British Free Trade, speculation, and cotton plantation economics. Following the IMF’s protocols that would be imposed onto victim nations 150 years later, Jackson cancelled all internal improvements in order to “pay the debt” and deregulated the banking system which resulted in the growth of over 7000 separate currencies issued by an array of state banks rendering the economy chaotic, bankrupt and prone to mass counterfeiting.

The defenders of the American System during this period (led by Whigs such as John Quincy Adams, and Henry Clay) played a rear-guard action hoping for an opening to occur at some point. When that opening finally arrived with the victory of Whig President William Harrison in 1840 a glimmer of hope was felt. Harrison swept to power with a mandate to “revive the national bank” and enact Clay’s American System of internal improvements but sadly the new leader found himself dead in a matter of only 3 months with legislation for the 3rd national bank sitting unsigned on his desk. Over his dead body (and that of another Whig president only 10 years later), the slave power grew in influence enormously.

It wasn’t until 1861 that a new president arose who successfully avoided assassination attempts long enough to revive Hamilton’s American System during a period of existential crisis of economic bankruptcy and foreign sponsored civil war which nearly destroyed the Union in ways not that dissimilar to the situation unfolding in America today.

In my next installment, I will introduce Abraham Lincoln’s revival of Hamilton’s American System with his incredible battle against the forces of Wall Street and the City of London who did everything in their power to ensure the success of the secessionist slave power.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Matthew Ehret’s Insights.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)