Chinese Interference in Canadian Elections? Looks That Way
For the past several months Canada has been dealing with a slow-drip story, which if true has the potential to blow that country's politics wide-open. It's claim is that the Communist Party of China has been illegally interfering in Canadian elections since at least 2015, the year Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party took control of the government. And which party were the Chi-Coms helping out? You get one guess.
The scandal began back in November, when agents from CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, began leaking intel to the Canadian media suggesting that a CCP network had "funded and infiltrated" the campaigns of nearly a dozen candidates in the 2019 federal election. Trudeau responded by claiming that he had confronted Xi Jinping about the report, but shortly thereafter a video of that exchange went viral, which showed a desperate Trudeau talking about Canada's commitment to "free and open and frank dialogue," and a dismissive Chairman Xi calling him "naïve" as he walked away.
Listen carefully, Xi Jinping added a comment: “so naive” when he ended the conversation with Justin Trudeau and walked away. 习近平和特鲁多对话完走了之后还有一句话，他自言自语说了句很天真 https://t.co/tQm22yZAo4
Amazingly, after that exchange it was revealed that Trudeau shouldn't have been at all shocked by the leaked reports -- he was in fact briefed about Chinese election interference before the 2019 election even took place. Moreover, further reporting alleged that, according to The Spectator's Sam Dunning, the CCP's political network in Canada "involved more than a dozen aides, a standing provincial politician, unelected officials and donors" and that "large sums changed hands, election law was breached (though there is no police investigation), and Trudeau’s Liberal party were the beneficiaries."
From there the leaks got bigger and potentially more damaging. They contended that 2019 wasn't the only election in which the CCP put their thumbs on the scale for the Liberals, that they had done so in 2021 as well. And that the Chinese government had coerced Chinese students studying in Canada to campaign for Liberal candidates in ridings with large Chinese populations. And that they had surreptitiously recorded a Chinese consulate official saying "The Liberal Party of Canada is becoming the only party that the PRC [People’s Republic of China] can support." And that Liberal Party insider (and well-known critic of Hong Kong's pro-democracy protestors) Michael Chan had had regular meetings with suspected Chinese intelligence assets. And that Kenny Chiu, a Hong Kong-born former Conservative MP and CCP critic, had lost reelection after a coordinated propaganda campaign against him on the Chinese social media app WeChat targeting Chinese voters in his riding. And that a sitting Liberal MP, Han Dong, was in Dunning's words, "a knowing beneficiary of covert CCP interference."
Justin Trudeau's response, and that of the Liberal party generally, has been to cry racism -- specifically the "rise in anti-Asian racism linked to the pandemic" -- and accuse Conservatives who have brought this up of being "Trump-like" election deniers. They've also argued that the CSIS leakers themselves are the real meddlers with Canada's democracy. But the fact of the leaks underscores what is more important than the interference itself -- Trudeau and the Liberals knew about this, they were briefed on these events as they were ongoing, but chose to ignore them.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess why. Canada's Liberals won two nail-biter elections thanks, in part, to the CCP. And Justin Trudeau seems to have personally benefitted. It has been reported that in 2015 a pro-China group donated $236,000 to the Liberal Party in Trudeau's own riding (effectively a donation to his reelection campaign), and that CCP-aligned groups attempted to ingratiate themselves to Justin Trudeau with a $750,000 donation to the University of Montreal in memory of his father, Pierre (and another $50,000 for a statue of the man, in which he was originally planned to be depicted alongside Chairman Mao), as well as a $200,000 donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Oddly, the CEO of the Trudeau Foundation at the time was a man named Morris Rosenberg, who authored the Liberal committee report contradicting the leaks and contending that there was no significant CCP interference in Canadian elections.
It remains unclear where all of this will lead. For what it's worth, Rex Murphy, one of the few Canadian political commentators who is worth reading, has written that "the Liberals are obviously scared about the Chinese election interference issue" and that Trudeau himself appears to be in a "tailspin," unable to right the ship or go toe-to-toe on this issue with his Conservative counterpart, Pierre Poilievre.
The Liberals desperation for this story to go away is palpable -- they recently filibustered a vote on summoning Trudeau's chief of staff to testify before parliament about when the prime minister was briefed on these instances of foreign interference -- and voters are starting to notice. Seventy-two percent of Canadians polled support for an independent inquiry, and if the pressure continues to build it is possible that the far-left New Democratic Party will consider abandoning their "confidence and supply agreement" currently keeping Trudeau in power, potentially triggering an election. Another possibility -- perhaps more likely -- is that Trudeau would announce his decision to follow fellow Commonwealth Leftists Jacinda Ardern and Nicola Sturgeon into an ignominious retirement.
Drip, drip, drip....
Enemies of the People: John Kerry
Your Credit Score Please, Comrade
Recently, the World Economic Forum (WEF) held its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Known as a globalist influencing operation, it is funded through membership fees from a cross-section of the elites from the private and public sectors, including CEOs, diplomats, celebrities, media personalities, government officials, religious leaders, and even union representatives from around the world. With attendance this year encompassing 52 heads of state and government and nearly 600 CEOs, the disconnect between the social and political objectives of the attendees and the best interest of the citizens and communities from which these WEF members hail, is widening.
From Sri Lanka to Belgium and from Main Street to Wall Street, the policy proposals and social change the WEF promotes and funds have by now been repeatedly rejected, legally challenged, and roundly criticized by the people these policies are purportedly intended to help. WEF policy prescriptions caused the collapse of the government in Sri Lanka last year, the degradation of the farming sector in Belgium, the destruction of the social fabric in New Zealand, the freezing of citizens’ bank accounts in Canada, higher fuel prices in Europe, the neutralization of the US. Energy sector, the funding and promotion of totalitarian policies similar to those in Communist Chinese, the support of border collapse, and perhaps most relevant to Americans, the creation, of the reporting and scoring scheme known as environmental, social and governance (ESG).
Poisonous to every living thing on the planet.
While WEF policy failures abound, and the ESG apparatus is being met with increasing legal and market challenges, the construct has nevertheless already had a significant negative impact on some industry sectors. ESG was created as a reporting and scoring system used to justify re-orienting the capital markets toward the social and political objectives important to WEF members, and their philosophical eco-system of non-profits, NGOs and financial sector partners. Though in defiance of the "sole interest" principle and fiduciary obligations codified in U.S. law to protect investors, the outsized influence of the financial sector, which has fully embraced ESG, has delivered a particularly strong blow to the U.S. oil and gas industry.
Because of the importance of capital in the scaling and management of many businesses, creating capital pressure through the ESG scheme has been one way ESG progenitors believe they can affect the growth of certain industries. Energy companies have had to look harder to find capital to finance oil and gas assets. This attempt to impede capital has led to supply constraints and higher energy prices globally. According to WEF literature, industries including agriculture, steel and concrete will likewise begin to be attacked which will drive prices across the economy even higher.
This year’s WEF theme of “Cooperation in a Fragmented World," was an ironic choice since the policies promoted by its members seem to reflect cooperation intended tocreate a fragmented world. The podium and panels overflowed with quips from elites from the United States to the United Nations, all seeking to sound more relevant than the person next to them. Their very attendance revealed their desire to financially enrich themselves, even if at the expense of those in their own countries or of society more broadly. With fear-filled descriptions of the imminent destruction of the planet unless their solutions, however dystopic, be accepted, it was a parade of anti-market misfits and international villains keen to strip you of your personal liberties while entrenching their own privilege and economic benefit.
Central to their success is the continued fomenting of fear about "climate change." According to their narrative, all problems in society emanate from this chimera. According to their logic, ESG therefore must necessarily be more deeply integrated into all business and society at large, not just corporate boardrooms. "Climate" is the pretense and ESG the mechanism from which to hang all of their liberty-defying policies and society-killing changes.
While initially focusing their ESG scoring scheme on the board rooms of publicly traded companies, WEF members and ESG advocates ultimately intend to also wrest control from private companies and even individuals. With societal control as an important strategic endpoint—think of the social credit scoring system used in China—the WEF highlights technologies and promotes companies whose sole purpose is in some way to track and surveil members of otherwise free societies. Always couched as an effort to improve one’s life, of course.
In the WEF-inspired world, your privilege will emanate from your social credit score. Use public transportation and your score goes up. Have children, and your carbon emission score goes down. Buy products deemed environmentally acceptable and your score goes up. Use too many fossil-fuel inspired luxuries like computers and private automobiles and your score goes down. If you have the correct colored check mark on your phone, you will be permitted to access to particular products, services, and experiences. Everyone else is relegated to the existence they are granted by their overseers.
Atop the sinister Magic Mountain, dread Klaus lies scheming.
Some of the mounting evidence: as first reported by True North during last year’s WEF’s annual meeting, an executive with the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba revealed that the company was working on an individual carbon footprint tracker. “We’re developing through technology an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint,” president J. Michael Evans said at the time.
Meanwhile, Mastercard already provides a CO2 emissions-tracking card, developed with technology from the WEF-promoted Swedish company, Doconomy. In May 2019 Doconomy launched its credit card that monitors the carbon footprint of its customers—and cuts off their spending when they hit their carbon max.
Then last fall, the Canadian-based credit union Vancity announced the introduction of Canada’s first-ever carbon tracking Visa card. It is available beginning this year. “The Carbon Counter will help Vancity card holders understand the carbon footprint of their purchases as well as provide advice on what they can do to reduce their emissions footprint.” a statement by Vancity read. In the case of Visa’s credit card technology, developed by Ecolytiq, it too provides “education and behavioral nudging.”
How long before one isn’t even permitted to have a credit card because one’s purchases don’t comport with the values of these arbiters of the acceptable? That day is coming, unless we stop it.
Who's Afraid of a Gigaton?
The Global Carbon Project, a cohort of self-anointed “experts” intent on proving that the Klimate Kult fiction through which they generate their funding is real, tracks carbon output across nations and creates a carbon “budget” of what they feel is allowable for humanity. When tracked against economic output, the report, "CO2 emissions have been flat for a decade,” is fascinating. It proves that what our elites are doing is exactly the opposite of what they’d be doing if they believed the green agenda were needed, let alone critical. How dare they?
Using gigatons of CO2, by nation, the GCP provides a metric of this “pollution” by country with the obvious intent of shaming the miscreants other than not-Green China and not-Green India into reducing their output of the CO2 that is a fundamental requirement for life on earth. Red China is allowed by those preening themselves over greenhouse gasses (GHG) to skip the entire Paris “agreement” and just not worry about CO2 output. The same CO2 measurements are the primary focus of the Green Inquisition to bash the U.S.A. for ours. Let’s look at the numbers:
Not-green China, a command economy under communist rule, the economic model preferred by our elites and to which our ruling class has been shipping all our jobs and prosperity for decades, generated in 2021, per this report, 11.5 gigatons of CO2, while creating an economic output of $17,734,000,000,000, or emitting 1.3 pounds of CO2 per dollar of economic output. America, a (semi-)free market, capitalist economy under ostensibly democratic governance, generated in 2021, 5.0 GTon of CO2, while creating an economic output of $22,196,000,000,000, emitting 0.45 pounds of CO2 per dollar of economic output.
In other words, America generates 288 percent of the economic output of China while emitting 43 percent of China’s CO2. Six times the economic output per Gton of CO2. If the political establishment pushing green actually were pushing green and de-carbonization, they’d recognize that a higher standard of living at a lower CO2 cost (i.e. a more efficient and productive use of energy) is being attained under our political-economic model than under that of Red China.
If our self-proclaimed “green” elites actually believed in “Climate Change” and were concerned about CO2 emissions, not only would we not be offshoring our manufacturing and prosperity and future, our elites would be making the pitch to all the world to move their manufacturing to America, and to move the entire planet to a capitalist free-market economy as this model provably provides more economic output per GTon of CO2 than any other, higher living standards than any other model in human history, and reduces carbonization along the way.
How to do this is not to sign-on to a global minimum tax, but to allow all countries to compete for industry – and jobs and living standards – using tax and market policies anathema to our rulers but liberty-generating for the global middle classes the WEF/Davos crowd is trying to annihilate, while reducing CO2 impact for all.
No one wants to decrease their living standards. This is why immigrants are flocking to America rather than to China or Mexico. If the world wants to decrease GHG and “Global Warming,” and to not reduce living standards, we need to move industry to the country and economic system with the highest GDP per ton of CO2: the United States, and to return to a free-market economy so derided by globalist elites.
The upsides of moving industry back to, or to, America are two. If, against all current and historical data, the earth is being heated by human-emitted GHG, we can reduce the CO2 output while simultaneously increasing global economic production - and so global standards of living. If, as the data actually show, the earth is entering a cooling period, then we will have the necessary industry here to at least keep us warm.
Plus, the working class grows wealthier, which history shows leads to a higher level of concern about the environment.
The point here isn’t that CO2 is increasing or decreasing, that the planet is warming, cooling or in stasis. The point is that the elites, the same ones telling us we must reduce our energy usage to pre-industrial levels, are acting against – not just ignoring, but acting against – what they insist be done. Which means they don't believe it, either.
What they insist on is contributing to the increase of GHG and, per their models, to the global warming about which they only pretend to care as a control device over our liberty and prosperity, the destruction of which is their actual goal.
We aren’t talking about private jets or big houses or multiple houses or extravagances those of us working and providing them their wealth cannot afford due to the policies of these same rulers. We’re talking about the facts on the ground: moving industry to a command economy increases rather than decreases GHG emission per economic unit of measure. Reducing GHG while keeping or increasing global living standards means moving jobs and industry back to a free-market economy and away from command economies.
More than any other report, this GCP report ought to convince everyone paying attention that the U.N. is not kidding in its statement of their goal for the entire climate change hoax. As noted by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change in Brussels, in 2015, the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
“Changing the economic model” that has done more than any other in history to reduce poverty and improve global standards of living and, not coincidentally, to reduce greenhouse gasses better than any other, is the goal of our elites.
Their goal with “Climate Change” has nothing to do with saving the planet. Adding this report to the actions of our greenies proves that they are intent on adding to the global carbon output and increasing climate change while reducing our prosperity; as noted here early and often, to destroy the global Middle Classes.
These are the facts as presented by the GCP, an instrument of the Klimate Kult seemingly oblivious as to what its data show.
This has nothing to do with climate. It never has. It never will.
In Defense of Bitcoin
When Bitcoin was first designed by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, it had two key features. First, unlike paper money which can be debased by overprinting, the total supply of Bitcoin cryptocurrency units was capped at 21 million. To ensure this number is never exceeded, the mathematical task necessary to make it intentionally grows progressively harder, like an asymptotically rising cliff, until no more than the limiting quantity can be produced. Second, validating the newly mined Bitcoin was itself computationally expensive to the network so that once it was registered, it was ruinously costly to counterfeit it.
Together the two computational exercises comprised "proof of work," which supported the integrity of the concept. You couldn't make Bitcoin without expending a lot of real physical electricity; nor could you demonetize a coin and replace it with one fashioned by a politician. Chiseling out and altering a single Bitcoin or consummated transaction would change the mathematical signature of the whole blockchain of which it was part, invalidating the whole, a fantastically difficult task. That resistance to alteration made it real.
These were deliberate design choices picked to mimic the physical properties of gold. Like gold, an element which is present in only small quantities in the earth's crust, Bitcoin rarity was thus guaranteed. Like gold, which could be assayed against dilution and forgery, Bitcoin could be exactly verified and its bits engraved in the public, distributed blockchain so there could be no doubt about its authenticity.
Miner at work.
The purpose of these design elements was to insulate it from attempts at manipulation. By emulating the properties of gold, Bitcoin became attractive to the financial industry. According to Susan Arbetter of State of Politics, "The allure of cryptocurrency is that by using blockchain technology, financial transactions are instantaneous, secure and very difficult to trace."
But its success has attracted the very attention it had hoped to avoid. Environmentalists, who are always looking for some new activity to denounce, noticed that Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity than Finland, and began to condemn the process. Before long, their political lapdogs took the hint and got to work. And here's their biggest success thus far -- New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently signed a law "banning Bitcoin mining operations that run on carbon-based power sources." According to CNBC,
For the next two years, unless a proof-of-work mining company uses 100 percent renewable energy, it will not be allowed to expand or renew permits, and new entrants will not be allowed to come online.
Some lawmakers saw Hochul restrictions as missing the boat to the future. These include Republican Assemblyman Robert Smullen, who argues "that New York is a world leader in financial services, so why shouldn’t the state lead when it comes to cryptocurrency as well?" Smullen's concern is that even Hochul's two-year moratorium will leave New York woefully behind, and push the fast-changing finance industry out of the state.
Until recently Hochul's restrictions would have been largely irrelevant since most Bitcoin mining was done in China with cheap coal-derived electricity. Then China cracked down on mining in the summer of 2021, driven by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) suspicion of anything outside its control. At its 2019 peak, China was mining 76 percent of all the Bitcoin on the planet. (America by contrast, was mining only 4 percent.) But crypto miners proved ready to move anywhere convenient. Even before China banned the practice, miners were already leaving in droves for Russia, Kazakhstan, Canada and the United States. America steadily overtook China, and by 2022 accounted for 37.8 percent of all mining, and is now the biggest player. (China remains in second, at just over 22 percent, due to the prevalence of underground miners.)
America's appeal to Bitcoin miners lies in its institutional stability. While American electricity wasn't the cheapest in the world, nothing could beat the U.S.'s combination of advantages: the large hosting capacity, ease of financing, attractive living standards. Says Darin Feinstein of crypto firms Blockcap and Core Scientific, "If you’re looking to relocate hundreds of millions of dollars of miners out of China, you want to make sure you have geographic, political, and jurisdictional stability. You also want to make sure there are private property right protections for the assets that you are relocating." In other words you want to be in America.
Good as gold?
The Bitcoin mining industry now claims to be greener than the average industry: 59.5 percent of the total bitcoin mining global energy comes from renewable sources. Much of its claimed sustainability comes from rapidly rising computational efficiency. While output was up 137 percent, energy usage was up only 63 percent. What other industry could say that? The message is unmistakable: Bitcoin miners are willing to play ball with the Kremlin, the majilis, the mandarins and the Woke, for as long as they don't ask for too much.
Today, New York produces 9.8 percent of the U.S. total, behind Kentucky (10.9 percent), Texas (11.2 percent) and Georgia (30.8 percent), a real, though still-minor, a player. New York's electricity is significantly more expensive than the other three, but since New York's powergrid has the lowest carbon intensity of the top four states it can try to highlight the greenness of its electricity. And while there's a push to make "green" energy part of a scorecard to determine investment decisions, the truth is that it doesn't matter much; the authenticity of a Bitcoin does not depend on its origins. Once a particular coin is validated, it doesn't matter whether the pool which computed it was in China, Kazakhstan, Ireland or New York State. They are all equal.
One day the mining will stop, forever. After the maximum number of bitcoins is reached no new bitcoins will be issued. "Bitcoin transactions will continue to be pooled into blocks and processed, and Bitcoin miners will continue to be rewarded, but likely only with transaction processing fees." By then no one will remember Kathy Hochul. In that sense, despite its recent woes, it will also be like gold. No one holding a bar of bullion today knows who originally wrenched it from the earth, by what roads it traveled, through whose bloodstained hands it passed. Sufficient is the fact of its existence. Bitcoin in that at least aims to be like all true money.
'Global Warming' Meets the Kobayashi Maru
Have you ever wondered how progressives were going to get the West to pay for climate reparations, estimated to cost between $1-1.8 trillion, yet limit economic activity enough to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C and do so with significantly fewer people? The populations of nearly all the present great military and economic powers will collapse in this century. One has to wonder who's going to be left to foot the bill.
For example, unless things radically change, Ukraine will halve from its 1990 level by 2100, annihilated not by Russia, but by legacy Soviet population control policies. Russia's population is also in free fall. It has already lost more than two million people since the fall of the USSR, even counting Crimea which it may not be able to keep. Even worse new census data shows that the only regions growing are ethnically non-Russian. "All predominantly ethnic Russian areas are declining." By 2100 China will have nearly half a billion people fewer than today. The One Child Policy is aging it fast. Japan's population, a World Economic Forum publication notes, is shrinking by a quarter million people each year. By the end of the century Europe will have diminished by 117 million.
By contrast, Africa’s population will soar from 1.34 billion to 4.28 billion, drawing nearly level with Asia in numbers by the dawn of the 22nd century. But though numerous authorities predict the Third World will be devastated by "climate change," a World Bank blog observes, "the climate crisis is a deeply unfair one: the poorest people in the world contribute the least to climate change."
Which way to the Camp of the Saints?
We return to the affordability of climate reparations. One might for a moment imagine a future world limping along where the only remaining licit sources of energy are the winds, the sun and the tides; where coal, petrochemicals, and nuclear power have been proscribed. But conceiving of how such an energy-handicapped world could pay compensation to teeming Africa from a dwindling workforce of aged climate criminals staggers the mind. By 2100 the median age in China will be 57 years of age, with half the Chinese older than that.
Can the aggrieved global South depend on that? People pose a dilemma. On the one hand they create wealth, so necessary for "redistributive justice." On the other hand they consume raw materials and threaten the planet. Do we celebrate the decrease of people in productive economies or fear it?
One answer, featured in the New York Times, posits that it's better to just bring down the curtain on the whole human story. "For the sake of the planet, Les Knight, the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, has spent decades pushing one message: 'May we live long and die out'". There is no alternative because "wealthy countries with relatively smaller populations like the United States are generating most of the pollution that is driving global warming." To force them to generate the income to pay climate reparations is to risk still more warming. “The lack of freedom to not procreate,” Mr. Knight argues, has doomed the earth. “We’re not a good species,” by his reckoning.
A better solution, says Lord J. Adair Turner of the World Economic Forum, is automation. "In a world of rapidly expanding automation potential, demographic shrinkage is largely a boon, not a threat. Our expanding ability to automate human work across all sectors – agriculture, industry, and services – makes an ever-growing workforce increasingly irrelevant to improvements in human welfare." It will not matter if half the people in China are over 57 if all the work is done for them by advanced robots and artificial intelligence.
There is, Turner notes, one fly in the ointment. In a world where robots make everything, most Africans can't get jobs. "Automation makes it impossible to achieve full employment in countries still facing rapid population growth," because unskilled labor will become worthless. He points to India as an actual example. "Although annual GDP growth has averaged around 7% for the last five years, it has been powered by leading companies deploying state-of-the-art technology. The expansion has created almost no new jobs, and an increasing share of India's population is either unemployed or underemployed in the country’s huge low-productivity informal sector.... But we should at least recognize that this is where the real demographic threat lies. Automation has turned conventional economic wisdom on its head: there is greater prosperity in fewer numbers."
Africans, as ever, are stuck on the wrong side of the door. They are inconveniently numerous and pose a problem for the few. The obvious expedient is to tax the rich old Asians and Europeans of their automated wealth and give it to those populations who stubbornly cling to the quaint old custom of having children. Forestalling instability, though Lord Turner may be wary of saying so directly, may be the real underlying reason why Western governments are pushing so-called climate reparations. "For years, the United States and other wealthy nations have blocked calls for loss and damage funding, concerned that it would open them up to unlimited liability," until Washington realized that it could be cheaper to pay Third World populations "climate compensation" rather than face billions of people, recently and permanently unemployed by technology, angrily demanding a Universal Basic Income.
The World Economic Forum website helpfully informs us that the natives would be restless without it: "The alternative to not having UBI is worse – the rising likelihood of social unrest, conflict, unmanageable mass migration and the proliferation of extremist groups that capitalize and ferment on social disappointment. It is against this background that we seriously need to consider implementing a well-designed UBI, so shocks may hit, but they won’t destroy."
It's not climate reparations; it's a redundancy payment. And a bribe.
But if, as Lord Turner assures us, robots can provide for everything then the progressives can have their cake and eat it too: the empty West, a populous global south sustained by UBI, all powered by no more than the sun, wind and waves. But because AI and robots use power also, often much more than a 20 watt human brain, the Green dream is constrained by the law of physics prohibiting getting something for nothing. The sad reality is that "machine learning is on track to consume all the energy being supplied. Perhaps there is not enough free energy on the planet to automate the dreams of ideologues.
In former times civilization saw humanity as the crowning glory of earth. Freeman Dyson once said, "the more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we are coming." Today it sees man as a problem. The leading intellectuals can hardly wait for man to give way to something else, for he is too creative; too inclined to disrupt. The only way to stop climate change is to dampen the source of change. The only fully predictable world is a quiet place where everything stays where it should is perfect in its own way. In other words, a dead one.
From Social Credit to Societal Control
While attending the APEC CEO Summit in Bangkok, World Economic Forum founder and Chairman Klaus Schwab was interviewed by a Chinese state media outlet and made a stunning series of comments about the People's Republic of China. The 84-year-old mastermind behind the Great Reset described China as a “role model for many countries” and expressed admiration for what the communist dictatorship has accomplished over the last four decades.
Schwab's comments provide a look at the kind of world for which he and other WEF member corporations currently advocate. With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s reign resting solely, if tenuously, on his government's ability to control the lives, opinions, currency, capital flows, and social interactions of Chinese citizens, Schwab’s fawning over Xi's achievements should set off alarm bells for the entire free world. It suggests that Schwab and his corporate WEF partners believe that all people should be similarly controlled, in defiance of national borders and democratic processes and institutions, with the capital flows of the U.S. and other nations redirected toward what WEF members describe as global goals. Conspicuously absent from their vision of a transformed world are the opinions, rights, and liberties of the governed.
Schwab claims that a great societal transformation is coming, led by people tasked with specific duties to ensure its success. Enter the ever-feckless financial sector, including BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, State Street, Wells Fargo and most other banking and financial sector corporations.
Always willing to place profit above principle, they are ideal partners in a campaign to rob investors of their sole-interest rights, while abdicating their own fiduciary obligations. These are the partners Schwab has in mind when he refers to the best people and most relevant people:
We have to try, with a collaborative platform where we integrate the best people -- the most relevant people. Where we work for progress. Now the base has been formed, but we have to go one step further.
This is where the Environmental Social, and governance (ESG) construct comes in. An initiative launched by the WEF over two decades ago and introduced through its multi-layered non-profit eco-system, ESG is a mechanism to re-orient capital flows toward political and social objectives that include government regulation, communal property rights and, ultimately, social scoring. It is an organized effort to wrest control of private property from the hands of owners and transfer it to WEF-minded interests under the guise of "protecting" the environment and repairing the "damage" done by capitalism.
According to Schwab, “We [WEF members] have to define specific elements of the global system. For example, nature and environment, climate change…to see what areas we can make... real progress.”
To underscore this, consider the report “Accelerating the Rate of Change: 2021-2025,” produced by the WEF-funded non-profit, Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which contends that the most pressing objective to ensure the culmination of a transitioned world is to define the concept of natural capital as having parity with financial capital. "Natural capital," under the ESG construct, refers to the entire planet's stocks of water, land, air, and renewable and non-renewable resources such as plant and animal species, forests, and minerals. If natural capital is given partiy with financial capital, as the WEF desires, there is no longer any private property. If property can be controlled by everyone, it is owned by no one.
To garner insight into what Schwab's world might look like in practice, one need only observe the protests that broke out throughout China only days after Schwab spoke so highly of Xi's achievements. They were held in defiance of lockdown measures that are purportedly in place to control the spread of Covid-19. But these methods are not new in Xi's China. They have been previously used against China's Uyghur population and other enemies of the Communist state, but now they are enveloping the entire Chinese population.
Laughing at us, not with us.
Chinese citizens are not free to move around or leave the country without the permission of government officials. They are not free to drive where they want and do not have unfettered access to their own money. They cannot freely communicate with anyone over their phones, and are under continuous surveillance by means of cameras equipped with facial-recognition technology. With the assistance of U.S. tech companies like Microsoft and Apple, Xi has waged war against his own people. He uses social credit scores and digital surveillance to perfect the societal control that Schwab finds so inspiring. No doubt this is what Schwab had in mind when he said,
In reality I think the world has moved closer together because we are moving from a physical world much more into a digital world. And a digital world is by nature a much more globally oriented.... We have to construct the world of tomorrow. It’s a systemic transformation of the world.
If unchallenged, ESG will similarly evolve into a tool to ascribe social scores to private companies, and ultimately to individuals. As is the case in China today, a good score will allow one to participate in society. Disobey the arbiters of the permissible, and your score will preclude you from living freely. This has already begun in North America, where ESG scoring has been used to redirect capital away from the U.S. oil and gas industry, while the likes of Goldman Sachs and BlackRock invest in China -- including in Petro China. In the meantime in Canada, prime minister and Schwab acolyte Justin Trudeau locked Canadians out of their own bank accounts for participating in peaceful protests against his administration’s policies last winter. That set a precedent which other nations will be happy to follow.
So while Klaus Schwab strives for his vision of a transformed world, we too must seek transformation -- from a world of mediocre corporate group-think to one in which excellence eviscerates arrogance. American business leaders who prefer coercion and control over liberty and freedom must be made to learn that they have no future here, digital or otherwise. No matter what Herr Schwab says or does.
THE COLUMN: Big Trouble in Little China
In a commencement address at Notre Dame in 1977, President Jimmy Carter observed that "democracy's great recent successes—in India, Portugal, Spain, Greece—show that our confidence in this system is not misplaced. Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear." Carter was widely criticized on the right for implying that communism was not the existential danger conservatives thought it was, but it was clear from the rest of the sentence that he was instead criticizing America's enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend strategy that had led us into bed with some distinctly unsavory characters, among them the Shah of Iran. Carter went on:
For too many years, we've been willing to adopt the flawed and erroneous principles and tactics of our adversaries, sometimes abandoning our own values for theirs. We've fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is better quenched with water. This approach failed, with Vietnam the best example of its intellectual and moral poverty. But through failure we have now found our way back to our own principles and values, and we have regained our lost confidence.
That "lost confidence" quickly vanished when less than a year later the Ayatollah Khomeini appeared on the scene and by January of 1979 had driven the Shah from power, leading to the establishment of the "Islamic Republic" and ultimately to the hostage crisis that destroyed the Carter presidency and to Ronald Reagan's smashing victories in 1980 and 1984 and thus the fall of the Soviet Union. Moral: do not project your own domestic virtues and expectations onto men from other countries and other cultures, a critical variation on the time-honored principle of never underestimating your enemy by overestimating his fundamental sympathies with you regarding such malleable concepts as "human rights."
Which brings us to China: the Mysterious East, beloved by Hollywood and once an exotic fixture of the American imagination, brimming with sinister orientals, foreign adventurers, Sikhs and sheiks, and Mother Goddam herself in a 1926 play and 1941 movie directed by Josef von Sternberg. It's Not Like Us, never has been, never will be:
The Peoples Republic of China is a slave state boasting a record of military ineptitude unrivaled by any other large nation on earth, and is entirely of a piece of nearly all Chinese governments that have come before it. It has no affinity with the West, nor does it desire one. Almost congenitally incapable of creativity, innovation and exploration, it has instead adopted financial colonization as a central instrument of its foreign policy, using its own people as pawns in an international chess game only one side is playing. Today, having scorned them as an undifferentiated mass of coolies led by a handful of mandarins, we fear them, but for all the wrong reasons.
As I've often observed, based on the historical record, the only people the Chinese can defeat in combat are themselves, as the stupefyingly high body counts of the Taiping Rebellion and Mao's civil war attest. The British easily conquered China during the Opium Wars, and in the runup to Pearl Harbor, tiny but ferocious Japan whipped them twice, in 1931 and again in 1937—not to mention Japan's victory in the First Sino-Japanese War at the end of the 19th century. In 1979, the Vietnamese gave the Peoples Liberation Army all it could handle, repelling its invasion during the Sino-Vietnam War.
Indeed, China's futility in combat with outsiders dates back as far as the Battle of Talas in 751 A.D., when the Abbasid Muslims and some Tibetan allies crushed the armies of the Tang Dynasty, halting Chinese westward expansion into central Asia. Nor could the Chinese stop the Mongol Conquest of the 13th century, nor the incursions by the Turkic Muslim Timur (Tamerlane) of the 14th. At the head of the Ever-Victorious Army in 1863, General George Gordon (who later died defending Khartoum against the Mahdi in 1885), led his peasant army defending Shanghai armed with little more than a swagger stick; they won. On the field of battle, big China is very much Little China.
One of China's principal cities, Shanghai, was for a long time under foreign occupation, a wide-open international city with British, French, and American residential and administrative zones; during World War II, Shanghai also had a Jewish ghetto, established for European Jewish refugees fleeing both Hitler and Stalin by the Japanese in a Chinese part of the city at the behest of their National Socialist German allies. (Among the famous "Shanghai Jews" born there are Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, Hollywood producer Mike Medavoy, and concert pianist Misha Dichter.)
Which is to say, America's inordinate fear of the Chinese does not arise from any evidence they can actually fight, in the way the Japanese, Germans, and Russians could. Even today, with their massive army and plastic navy rattling the sabers of stolen (and, as they might well find out, booby-trapped) martial technology confronting a woke American military establishment more concerned with "critical race theory" and the affirmative promotion of risible transsexuals to high rank, China does not pose an existential military threat. Instead, it comes from their hand-me-down Marxism-Leninism—even their failed system of government has been hijacked from the West—has risen in direct proportion to our cozying up to them economically. And why not? If they treat their own people like slaves, why shouldn't Apple and other rapacious and immoral international corporations employ them to make the iPhones that will hang us?
In other words, China has not become a major player on the international stage by military means, but by traditional culture methods of often-unscrupulous economy savvy, effective use of bribery, and a massive diaspora that has seen Chinese communities established all over the world, including Malaysia, Singapore, India, Indonesia (where they made themselves so unwelcome that there widespread anti-Chiinese riots in 1998) and, latterly, in Africa and South America. Fear of Chinese soft power was so strongly entrenched in the United States after thousands of Chinese arrived to work on the railroads that Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which began a general tightening of immigration that lasted until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.
Ever since the hapless Carter dumped the losing side in the most recent Chinese civil war and recognized the "Peoples Republic," China has employed its only weapon—people—as a weapon against the West and in particular against the United States. It floods the country with spies called "students," it bribes politicians and academics and then hides behind the usual cries of "racism." It obviously has suborned and corrupted the current president of the United States and members of his contemptible family even as Biden tells Americans "they're not bad folks, folks,"
Perhaps, like Carter, Biden is temporarily right for the wrong reasons regarding the Chinese threat. At the moment, China is rapidly descending into chaos—in a fine bit of dramatic irony if not actual karma, entirely owing to its own maleficent role in the creation and weaponization of Covid-19, which has resulted in totalitarian lockdowns, civic violence, and now calls for the head of dictator-for-life Xi Jinping. Whether Xi, like Julius Caesar before him, has taken a step too far and will soon be decisively deposed, remains a matter of conjecture in a land once routinely referred to as "inscrutable." But if history tells us anything, it's that China's appetite for internal bloodletting is far greater than its desire for world conquest; all we really need to do is sit back and let nature take its course.
In the end, it's still a place of obscure motives, intense tribal relationships, alien customs, and ways that are not our ways. A place that relies on the sloth and greed of others to hook them on cheap plastic electronics and third-rate steel and concrete as they willingly hollow out their own industries and junk their national pride to make a buck. It's Chinatown.
Diary of an Acclimatised Beauty: Hunting
There’s nothing like a weekend in the country especially when all of London is going to be there! I’m speaking, of course, of going for a shooting holiday, and honestly I can’t wait. I’ve three days to pack, get a manicure, some new frocks, and a coiff from Daniel at Jo Hansford.
Judith (mummy) is so glad I’m preserving tradition but she forgets ‘tradition’ used to come with a small staff. She should have stayed home to help me but as usual—poof—the ever-vanishing Judith. And a shooting holiday always requires shooting clothes. Lots. So where are mine? I rifled through the wardrobe in the spare room, the crawl space in my childhood room, the trunk under the stairs—nothing. I’d hoped to take my things straightaway to Jeeves for freshening but I was going to have to wait for Judith. With little chance of success, I started poking through the hall closet when daddy became aware of my frustration.
‘Looking for something? Plastic straws perhaps? Because we’re all out—been feeding them to dolphins’, Daddy said.
‘Ha. Not funny’ I replied, ‘and anyway it’s sea turtles’. I was not in the mood. ‘I’m looking for my sporting clothes’. I said.
‘Maybe in California?’
‘Oh my god, NO!’ I shouted back. He knows they aren’t there but he can’t resist a chance to bug me about my house in LA.
‘Maybe at the country house?’ he said.
‘Why would they be at the country house?’ I asked.
‘Because it’s — the country?’
The way we were.
UGH! Of course that’s where they were. And now I had to decide whether to drive to the country or pop over to James Purdey. ‘Tradition’ doesn’t make it easy to be an environmentalist. The risk of buying new was that only Americans show up to a hunt with spanking-new clothes. It’s just not the done thing. What a mess!
I thought of calling Isabella Lloyd Webber whom I know from so many eventing weekends but I knew she’d sooner pay someone to break in her clothes than show up looking naff. I bit the bullet and immediately felt better upon arrival at Purdey’s. The salesman was quite chatty and said I’d just missed Gemma Owen who left with three bags (new!), that they’d shipped loads to Delphi and Marina Primrose (new and new), and they’d earlier served Lord William Gordon Lennox, though one expects to see him in new everything—I’d never seen him out of his signature cream suit.
When I reached home I saw my broker had called twice. WHY?? I’m not some high-flying trader with margin calls. I’m not even sure I know what a margin call is but seems he wanted me to sell all interests in rechargeable e-scooters. I’d taken a rather large position owing to the benefit to the environment. Plus we expect them to be wildly popular once they become permanently legal. But it seems London had 130 e-bike blazes in the last year alone.
‘But it’s the trial period…’ I protested, and he told me e-bikes had caused more than 200 fires in New York, including a quite-bad high-rise fire. He went on about impending lawsuits, poor-quality parts, and an entire e-scooter maintenance facility had gone up in smoke.
It's all fun and games until somebody bursts into flames.
‘But that’s China’s fault—they are giving us poorly-designed batteries, we just need more regulation’ I insisted. I heard my father snicker in the background and I realised just how futile my protest sounded. ‘Fine then sell!’ I said. ‘Sell it all’. It was a blow and felt I was letting the planet down. All except for the black smoke and lithium solvent contamination.
I put my new clothes in the solarium to air out and headed up to my room. It had been a trying day but all of my hard work paid off when two days later our helicopter loomed over Inveraray—the first of several spectacular locations. I hadn’t been here since their now-defunct horse trials.
The estate was now focused on winning a Purdey Award for Game Conservation and even before the hunting ball we had to sign a declaration that we, and all connected with the shoot, were conversant and in compliance with the Code of Good Shooting Practice. Inveraray’s entry this year was habitat improvements and species biodiversity.
When I got to my room and opened my bags the unmistakable smell of 'new' filled my air… it was a mix of plastic, and wool sizing. Where’s a good moth ball when you need one?
I took my place at dinner, escorted by the future Duke of Argyll and his good friend Max, a known Jack-the-Lad swept in. ‘Oooh! I know you! I’m sure I do’ he insisted. But I only knew him from his reputation: a brash, cocky university dropout who was making a career of his fast friendship and love of shooting.
Our dinner was served… this year’s winning recipe entry to the Fieldsports competition: ‘Snipe Jacket Potatoes’. It was a whole snipe, complete with head, and long legs crossed almost comically and encased in a potato cocoon. It was so much more disgusting than any bug I’d ever served and I started gagging. ‘That’s it… you’re her… that bug hostess!’ Max exclaimed as I continued to gag and fled the table.
I decided to stay away at least until the next course. My mobile lit up with a text from my broker… ‘ALL OUT’ he wrote. I tapped back to him… ‘just out of curiosity what was the exact stock symbol of the shares we just sold? I may wish to recommend it to a new friend’.
Your Papers Please, Comrade
We are seeing the beginning of the end - or is it the end of the beginning? – of the CCP (the Climate Covid Party) "emergencies." For those who may have doubted these were linked, I give you the G20 summit. It seems the G have decided that Covid digital passports are to be required to move freely about the planet. For those who wondered what Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab were doing speaking this week to a meeting of national leadership: now we know.
Because the G20, with the exception of China, are at least putative democracies, an objective observer would assume this is the result of what the people wanted. One would be wrong. No one voted for or against this; it's never been presented for the approval of the representative governments, or citizens or subjects of the G20, or the people of any other nations.
We know these passports have nothing to do with the spread of this manufactured virus. Just last month BigPharma testified to the European Parliament that these injections were never tested for their ability to repress or stop the transmission of Covid-19. If an injection won't stop transmission, which has been the stance of the CDC for months, the purpose of getting a "vaccine" to travel, would be... what, exactly?
At the same time as G20 is COP27, the annual boondoggle of those so worried about the climate that they all take private jets from around the planet (spewing millions of tons of "greenhouse gasses" along the way) to consume vast quantities of exotic foods (flown in from around the planet) cooked (with GHG) and served to them as they meet in air-conditioned ballrooms to discuss how we, the workers and families of the world—the productive classes—are destroying the planet with our transportation, stoves, and HVAC.
As we've discussed here before, this virus was most likely man-made. No trace has been found of it or a progenitor in nature in well over two years of investigation or the testing of over 50,000 animal subjects. Once Dr. Fauci admitted the “possibility” of its creation in a lab and covering emails began showing up, that jig was up. The "vaccine" was created and patented ten days after the first sequence of the Covid genome. This simply is not possible unless both were concurrently designed and manufactured. And, yes, the "vaccine" was designed; it is not from an inactivated virus, as all other,genuine vaccines have been in medical history. It's an artificially-created DNA map.
Various studies based on governmental databases of adverse events show that these "vaccines" may have killed as many as 600,000 Americans, and perhaps, millions, worldwide. While these numbers may or may not be high, the numbers of adverse events are so high that many countries are recommending against vaccinating people under 30, and Big Pharma, belatedly, has decided to investigate whether their injections are causing myocarditis, a term in common use today of which few of us were aware in the Before Times.
Which brings us to Klaus Schwab. Herr Schwab, of course, leads his WEF creation, a cohort believing that the global population must be reduced to under one billion souls from the current eight-plus billion. “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population,” in the words of WEF Advisor/Historian Yuval Noah Harari, because most of us, evidently, are “useless eaters.” An invented virus that kills millions, an injection killing millions more and inducing infertility to reduce future populations are but two steps on the road to the goal of our elites, those running the Covid & Climate scams.
[The accuracy of the documentary linked above, which has been of course banned by YouTube, has been questioned by the usual suspects in academe, the medical establishment, and the media. A sample:
Members of the anti-vaccination movement and of its media arm excel at portraying themselves as “those who care.” The rest of us—scientists, doctors, politicians, journalists—are represented as either apathetic or simply evil. The latest “documentary” to emerge from this movement, Died Suddenly, is an exercise in reframing compassion. It also represents the apogee of conspiritualist ideas, where grand conspiracy theories surrounding vaccines are painted on a canvas so large, they involve a Biblical war between the forces of absolute good and those of pure evil.
Who are portrayed as ringing the alarm for Armageddon in Died Suddenly? Embalmers... The problem is that embalmers and funeral directors are not medical professionals. Don’t take it from me, but from the National Funeral Directors Association in the United States, whose representative told me as much, and from Ben Schmidt, a funeral director and embalmer with a bachelor’s degree in natural science. Schmidt wrote a detailed explanation of what is happening here. Clots can easily form after death, as the liquid and solid parts of blood separate and as formaldehyde and calcium-containing water used in the embalming process catalyze clotting. Refrigeration can also be to blame, especially when a rapid influx of bodies due to COVID necessitates longer stays in the cooler as embalmers make their way through their backlog.
[Watch it and decide for yourself.]
Another step down the road to perdition is digital "money." If I must have a digital passport to travel, why not just digitize my money as an added convenience? And since Schwab has told us we "all" will be chipped one day, coding "our" money and vaccine passport into an injected chip that automatically access “our” “money” at the Fed (banks will be useless and so closed; think of the taxing advantages!) and provides our "vaccination" status to a digital reader, perhaps even as we just walk past a sensor entering a store or airport or transit station, would be convenient, no? Hello, Bill Gates.
President Biden has decreed via executive order, without presentation to representative government or to the citizens of the United States (perhaps it is now "subjects") for our approval, that the Federal Reserve explore the creation of a “Central Bank Digital Currency,” “CBDC,” or digital “dollar,” and MIT is working it out.
President Biden will sign an Executive Order outlining the first ever, whole-of-government approach to addressing the risks and harnessing the potential benefits of digital assets and their underlying technology. The Order lays out a national policy for digital assets across six key priorities: consumer and investor protection; financial stability; illicit finance; U.S. leadership in the global financial system and economic competitiveness; financial inclusion; and responsible innovation. Specifically, the Executive Order calls for measures to:
Protect U.S. Consumers, Investors, and Businesses by directing the Department of the Treasury and other agency partners to assess and develop policy recommendations to address the implications of the growing digital asset sector and changes in financial markets for consumers, investors, businesses, and equitable economic growth. The Order also encourages regulators to ensure sufficient oversight and safeguard against any systemic financial risks posed by digital assets.
Protect U.S. and Global Financial Stability and Mitigate Systemic Risk by encouraging the Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify and mitigate economy-wide (i.e., systemic) financial risks posed by digital assets and to develop appropriate policy recommendations to address any regulatory gaps.
Mitigate the Illicit Finance and National Security Risks Posed by the Illicit Use of Digital Assets by directing an unprecedented focus of coordinated action across all relevant U.S. Government agencies to mitigate these risks. It also directs agencies to work with our allies and partners to ensure international frameworks, capabilities, and partnerships are aligned and responsive to risks.
Promote U.S. Leadership in Technology and Economic Competitiveness to Reinforce U.S. Leadership in the Global Financial System by directing the Department of Commerce to work across the U.S. Government in establishing a framework to drive U.S. competitiveness and leadership in, and leveraging of digital asset technologies. This framework will serve as a foundation for agencies and integrate this as a priority into their policy, research and development, and operational approaches to digital assets.
Promote Equitable Access to Safe and Affordable Financial Services by affirming the critical need for safe, affordable, and accessible financial services as a U.S. national interest that must inform our approach to digital asset innovation, including disparate impact risk. Such safe access is especially important for communities that have long had insufficient access to financial services. The Secretary of the Treasury, working with all relevant agencies, will produce a report on the future of money and payment systems, to include implications for economic growth, financial growth and inclusion, national security, and the extent to which technological innovation may influence that future.
Support Technological Advances and Ensure Responsible Development and Use of Digital Assets by directing the U.S. Government to take concrete steps to study and support technological advances in the responsible development, design, and implementation of digital asset systems while prioritizing privacy, security, combating illicit exploitation, and reducing negative climate impacts.
Explore a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) by placing urgency on research and development of a potential United States CBDC, should issuance be deemed in the national interest. The Order directs the U.S. Government to assess the technological infrastructure and capacity needs for a potential U.S. CBDC in a manner that protects Americans’ interests. The Order also encourages the Federal Reserve to continue its research, development, and assessment efforts for a U.S. CBDC, including development of a plan for broader U.S. Government action in support of their work. This effort prioritizes U.S. participation in multi-country experimentation, and ensures U.S. leadership internationally to promote CBDC development that is consistent with U.S. priorities and democratic values.
Which now brings the climate scam into the discussion. What has digital money to do with climate? Lots.
If I've consumed my "climate allotment" of gasoline this month I could be prevented from using “my” digital “money,” to fill my tank. You didn't think a "climate lockdown" would be voluntary, did you? The jet set wouldn't trust us to stay home, even after so many millions of us voluntarily did so for "two weeks to flatten the curve," wore one mask or two, and agitated against, and sometimes attacked, our fellow human beings for not going along with the crowd.
So you were on your way to Yellowstone and now neither can continue nor return home with the kids? Sorry! Buy a steak for supper tonight? But you had one two weeks ago! Your commute uses so much gasoline you'll need to move to an apartment near a mass transit station in the inner city? It's for the common good. You run a feedlot and can't buy feed for your hundreds of heads of cattle? Oh, well. You need to restock your ammunition? LOL.
They're coming for us, too. Once we all are chipped and our travel and spending controlled, the “emergencies” will be over. None of this has ever been about a virus or the weather. It's always been about destroying the middle class, our representative governments, and the liberty have convinced ourselves we have. We don't.
"Papers, please!" to travel our world, and needing the government's permission to spend our own money—the fruits of our own labor—are but the end of the beginning of global totalitarianism. These are why we are, and why you should be, Against the Great Reset.