Category Archives: EU/Eurozone

COVID-19 pop culture foreshadowings

There are some who maintain that our puppeteers, aka The Powers That Be (TPTB), engage in “predictive programming” of the masses. According to one definition:

Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by TPTB.
If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as ‘natural progressions’, as Alan Watt (*) calls it; thus lessening any possible public resistance and commotion.
Predictive programming therefore may be considered as a veiled form of preemptive mass manipulation or mind control, courtesy of our puppet masters.

If you go to this link, you’ll find some examples of predictive programming in movies. Below are links to FOTM posts on predictive programming:

The COVID-19 Wuhan virus pandemic also has foreshadowings.

(1) 2003 TV Show “Dead Zone”

Eerily, the “Dead Zone” TV show from 2003 was about a “mysterious flu virus” that “originated from China” which causes high fever and respiratory distress, and talks about quarantine/lockdown, wearing protective masks, and the anti-malarial drug Hydroxychloroquine as the cure. That’s way too many “coincidences” for my taste.

(2) 2012 EU Comic Book

Then there is that 2012 European Union (EU) comic book on a virus pandemic and lockdown.

Steve Watson of Summit News alerts us to the “strange” comic book that “eerily predicted almost exactly what has unfolded with the Covid-19 global pandemic”. A globalist’s wet dream come true, the book ends with unelected globalist bureaucrats saving the day and the planet.

Authored by J. D. Morvan and Huang Jia Wei, the comic book Infected was a production of the Directorate-General of the European Commission’s International Cooperation and Development, and is described by the EU as: “While the story may be fictional, it is nevertheless intertwined with some factual information.”

Curiously, the graphic novel was not intended for widespread public consumption. Only a few hundred of Infected were published, distributed to institutions within the EU.

Here are the similarities of Infected the comic book and the COVID-19 pademic:

  • Infected features the transmission of a novel virus from animals to humans in a crowded wet market in China, just as we originally were told the COVID-19 coronavirus had come from bats sold in a wet market in Wuhan, China.
  • The graphic novel depicts scientists inside a lab in China experimenting with deadly pathogens, just as a U.S. government report (and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as well) says the COVID-19 virus most likely was produced in a lab in Wuhan, which is China’s equivalent of the CDC, and “accidentally” got out.

  • Infection suggests that air travel would exacerbate the spread of the virus. One character in the graphic novel says: “You’d have headed back to Europe, the US, Latin America, or Australia as planned via an international airport.”
  • Infection depicts a global health organisation’s failure to act quickly enough to stop a pandemic, just as the World Health Organization (WHO) is criticized for its slow action on COVID-19 and for its bias in favor of China.
  • As with the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU comic book also depicts draconian safety measures against the virus, including social distancing, which make everyday life “totally unbearable”.
  • In the comic book, globalists are lauded for helping develop and distribute a vaccine to the world, just as Bill Gates is applauded for funding production of the seven most promising ideas for a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Infection concludes with an EU Parliament hearing in which Brussels pushes for more integrated European cooperation on global health matters, mirroring a real life initiative known as ‘One health’.

To read and download the graphic novel Infected, click here.

Lastly, while not predictive programming, the idea of a social-distancing lockdown originated in a 15-year-old girl’s 2006 high school science project.

As reported by Ollie Reed Jr. for Albuquerque Journal, in 2006, Laura Glass, with some guidance from her dad Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids came in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her computer program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed, i.e., locked down.

Robert Glass incorporated his daughter’s lockdown idea in a paper, titled “Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza,” for Bush Administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for a Cabinet-level tabletop exercise at the White House. The question posed was what could be done to avoid disaster if there was no vaccine and limited antiviral supplies.

Glass’s paper set out a model for forced separation of people in a pandemic, and called for what amounts to a totalitarian lockdown.

Robert Glass told Albuquerque Journal: “I thought, ‘That’s exactly what Laura is working on.’ Her model was right there on the computer. I realized that was something important. I discussed it with her. She said, ‘Why don’t you close the schools?’ I was taking advice from my (high school) daughter.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Netherlands Supreme Court: Dementia patients can be euthanized against their will

How “progressive” and humane of The Netherlands . . . .

In 2001, The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia, euphemistically called “assisted suicide”. Since the legalization, Netherlands has been on a slippery slope, with ever-expanding euthanasia laws.

Sixteen years later, by 2017, euthanasia had become a common way to die, accounting for 4.5% of deaths in The Netherlands, increasingly from people who weren’t terminally ill. (CBS News)

Bridget Sielicki reports for Live Action News that on April 21, 2020, a Dutch Supreme court ruling now enables doctors to euthanize a dementia patient provided the patient has submitted a written request in advance, and even if the patient later changes his/her mind.

The Dutch Supreme Court said in a statement:

“A doctor may respond to a written request for granting euthanasia to people with advanced dementia. In such a situation, all legal requirements for euthanasia must be met, including the requirement that there is hopeless and unbearable suffering. The doctor is then not punishable. Even if it is clear that the request is intended for the situation of advanced dementia, and that situation is reached so that the patient is no longer able to form and express a will, there can be circumstances where no follow-up on the request is possible.”

The Dutch court’s ruling follows a landmark court case in which a doctor euthanized a woman with a severe case with dementia. The woman had written an advanced directive requesting euthanasia should she be placed in a nursing home and she felt the time was “right.” Although the woman later wavered and refused to give her consent to be euthanized, her doctor went ahead with killing her, as she was held down by her family members. The doctor was acquitted of murder following a trial.

Cardinal William Eijk, president of the Bishops’ Conference of the Netherlands, decried the court’s latest ruling saying it. He told Catholic News Service the ruling will make easier for doctors to take the lives of their most vulnerable patients, and put more pressure on doctors to commit euthanasia:

“One may fear that the Supreme Court’s judgment, though making physicians perhaps more uncertain in performing euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia, will not lead in general to a decrease of the number of cases of euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. Physicians of nursing homes therefore fear that they will be put under pressure by patients with dementia and their relatives to perform euthanasia as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Hypocrite: Epidemiologist whose computer model prompted coronavirus lockdown policy had trysts with married woman

Neil Ferguson, 52, a quintessential beta male from the looks of him, is an epidemiologist and professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College, London, UK, and head of the college’s COVID-19 Response Team..

Ferguson specialises in the patterns of spread of infectious disease in humans and animals. He creates mathematical models to study and make policy recommendations on infectious diseases, including the ebola virus, HIV, swine flu, SARS and smallpox.

In February 2020, using statistical models, Ferguson sounded the alarm that cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were significantly under-detected (only 10% detected) in China, and that travellers from China had started chains of transmission within the countries they entered, including the UK.

In March, Ferguson gained widespread media attention when his COVID-19 Response Team published projections that the UK could face hundreds of thousands of deaths from COVID-19 without strict social distancing measures, but that with “strict social distancing, testing and isolation of infected cases”, deaths in the UK could fall to less than 20,000. The article concludes that “Many more deaths will be averted through ensuring that [non-pharmaceutical] interventions remain in place until transmission drops to low levels.” By “non-pharmaceutical interventions” is meant “case isolation, the closure of schools and universities, banning of mass gatherings and/or public events, and most recently, widescale social distancing including local and national lockdowns.” (See “Report 13: Estimating the number of infections and the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in 11 European countries“)

A government advisor on the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee, Ferguson wielded great influence on the UK government’s policy on infectious diseases. As Toby Young of Spectator USA puts it:

The professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London seemed to have bewitched successive prime ministers, blinding them with his brilliance. Whenever a health emergency broke out, whether it was mad cow disease or avian flu, there he was, PowerPoint in hand, telling the leaders of the United Kingdom what to do. And they invariably fell into line.

On March 23, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was persuaded by Ferguson’s COVID-19 mathematical models to impose a lockdown on the whole uk population, banning all “non-essential” travel and contact with people outside one’s home, and shutting almost all businesses, venues, facilities, amenities and places of worship.

So it is the height of hypocrisy and deceit that Neil Ferguson chose to violate the lockdown policy he himself had recommended by having his married mistress, Antonia Staats, 38, visit him at his London home during the lockdown. Ferguson is also married, albeit “separated,” with one son.

According to the Telegraph, Staats made her first visit to Ferguson’s London flat on March 30, twelve days after Ferguson, on March 18, announced he’d tested positive for COVID-19 and that he was self-isolating in his flat.

On April 4, despite having violated the lockdown rule Ferguson told listeners of “BBC Today” that the lockdown must continue at least till the end of May because that would “risk the epidemic getting worse.”

The following week, on April 8, Staats made a second visit to Ferguson’s flat, despite telling friends she suspected that her husband had coronavirus symptoms.

A native of Germany, Staats is a rabid leftist who campaigned against Brexit and for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. She has been praised by Al Gore and Martin Schulz, the president of the unelected EU Parliament. Staats lives with her husband, an academic, and two children in a £1.9 million ($2.35 million) house in south London, and reportedly has an “open” marriage. She told friends she does not believe her and Ferguson’s actions to be hypocritical because she considers their two households to be one.

Two days later, on April 10, again speaking on “BBC Today,” Ferguson insisted that the lockdown must continue, despite the “huge” economic costs, social costs, personal and health costs.

Like Staats, Ferguson also believes he did nothing wrong. He told the Telegraph that he’d “acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms.” He allowed that “I deeply regret any undermining of the clear messages around the continued need for social distancing,” and insisted that the lockdown “is unequivocal, and is there to protect all of us.”

On Tuesday night, May 5, Ferguson admitted he had made an “error of judgment” and resigned from his government role on the SAGE committee.

Not only is Neil Ferguson a hypocrite and adulterer, his computer models have been found to be grossly inaccurate.

As recounted by Toby Young, Ferguson’s computer model predicted that if the Swedish government continued to pursue its “reckless” non-lockdown COVID-19 policy, the Swedish healthcare system would be overwhelmed 40-fold. By May 1, 40,000 Swedes would die of COVID-19, and 96,000 would die by the end of the year.

As of the time of this post, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Sweden is 25,265, and the number of COVID-19 deaths is 3,175 — 36,835 fewer deaths than what Ferguson’s computer model had predicted. (Worldometer)

Meanwhile, Neil Ferguson has become synonymous with hypocrisy.

If you search for “Neil Ferguson” on Wikipedia, you’ll be directed to Wiki‘s entry on “Hypocrisy”. LOL

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Urges European Countries to Censor Political Speech

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, meets China’s president Xi Jinping during negotiations to allow the social media giant to conduct business in the world’s most populous nation.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has called for Europe to regulate social media on  issues such as political messages, privacy and data portability — or risk losing ground to “authoritarian” rules set down by countries such as China.

Zuckerberg met members of the European Union’s Executive Commission in Brussels on February  15 and  later gave an address at the Munich Security Conference in Germany in which he made his pitch for censoring free speech.

He said regulatory boundaries would give citizens “confidence” that tech giants were following a set of rules agreed by everyone, and that users “don’t want private companies taking decisions on how to balance social equities without a democratic process.”

“I believe our responsibility is to build the operational muscle to be able to enforce policies, fight interference and have good auditing and controls,” he said, but governments should provide “more guidance and regulation … on political advertising or what discourse should be allowed or on [drawing the line between] harmful expression and freedom.”

Zuckerberg said the process would “create trust and better regulation of the internet.” He also emphasised urgency, saying he was “very worried” that countries such as China were encoding “authoritarian values” in their regulation of the internet.

“To encode democratic values, open values, we’ve got to move forward  and move quickly before more authoritarian models get adopted in a lot of places first,” he said.

And yet, as Zuckerberg delivered his pitch to Europeans urging them to regulate free speech on the Internet before China forces the issue, he neglected to acknowledge that he already had caved in to the communist demands for censorship.

Niko Efstathiou writing for World Crunch, detailed Zuckerberg’s nine-year effort to get the communists to allow Facebook into China, and how the Facebook CEO finally caved into China’s demands for total censorship control.

In his January 17, 2018 article, Efstathiou writes:

“It was a handshake nine years in the making.

Amid a mass of red and blue banners — with Facebook’s mission “Making The World More Open And Connected” written in big white letters  — Mark Zuckerberg and Ren Xianliang, China’s deputy head of cyberspace administration, sealed a long-awaited agreement in front of a pulsating crowd of students at Tsinghua University. Having been summarily banned from China in 2009, Facebook was finally re-entering the Chinese market after authorities deemed Facebook’s content-suppression software to be in full compliance with the country’s censorship laws.

“We are very happy that Facebook and China are restoring the world’s faith in the digital space, by making sure that all online issues are related to reality,” Ren declared before the well-orchestrated event, an odd blend of news conference and university pep rally.

Zuckerberg said he was excited to see where 750 million Chinese users would take Facebook’s community. He ended with a salutation in Mandarin, earning a foot-stomping ovation.

With all the smiles at Tsinghua, it was easy to forget how resistant China had been to Facebook’s attempts to enter its booming online market. The ban had come swiftly after independence activists in the Xinjiang region used the social media platform for internal communications. In the years that followed, and despite numerous visits by Zuckerberg, the Beijing authorities remained unyielding in refusing Facebook’s entry past the so-called Great Firewall of China.

The key to reverse the situation first came in 2016 when Facebook began quietly developing a news-filtering software that had the potential to satisfy China’s censorship demands. That project initially provoked controversy, but Donald Trump’s election and the furor around fake news became just the smokescreen the social media giant needed to make its Chinese dream a reality.

Following Trump’s surprise victory, fake news quickly had become the phrase of the moment, following a falsehoods zeitgeist that prompted the Oxford Dictionary to select “post-truth” as its word of the year in 2016. Stories ranging from Pope Francis endorsing Trump for the presidency to Hillary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS sprung up on people’s news feeds in the weeks before the U.S. election.

Political leaders, newspaper editors and tech companies alike expressed concern about the risks that fabricated stories could pose for democracy. Clinton supporters blamed the phenomenon for her loss. Trump, meanwhile, assigned the fake news label to virtually any criticism of him that appeared in the media, making sure to hold on to the “k” in “fake” for extra theatrics.

Initially, Facebook had strongly resisted the idea that it should accept editorial responsibility for the content published on its platform; it was fearful of the costs and the extra regulation this could mean. But under intense public pressure — and a German bill that proposed up to a 500,000-euro fine per fake article — the company began to take steps to demonstrate it was acting against the truly and blatantly made-up stories. In January 2017, after a series of false reports targeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel surfaced on social media, the company released a fake news-filtering mechanism that allowed users to report articles as fake.

The system sent articles flagged by a sufficient number of users to Correctiv, a third-party fact-checking nonprofit staffed by investigative journalists who would work to determine the content’s validity. Stories found to be false were then marked as “disputed” and placed under a restriction by Facebook’s news feed algorithm, with a warning sent to users who chose to share them.

The U.S. version of the system arrived in May, with the fact checking delegated to major American news outlets as well as nonprofits. The Associated Press, ABC News, PolitiFact and Snopes signed on. The initiative earned early praise, with Facebook credited for a bold response to counter the post-truth age.

 Chinese officials quickly began labeling articles critical of their rule “假新闻”: fake news.

But after that initial enthusiasm, the new system quickly took a different turn. A number of the news outlets signed on to fact-check began to lose interest: Up against the armies of trolls, the value of experienced reporters dedicating their time to debunking often obviously absurd pieces seemed questionable amid ever-shrinking newsroom budgets. At the same time, users and media commentators asked why Facebook wasn’t simply removing the posts automatically.

But the controversy took on an entirely different dimension when people realized the tool that would allow this already existed: in China.

The mechanism built for China, unlike the U.S. version, did away with the flaggers and fact-checkers and simply deleted posts based on keyword analysis. Facebook was not responsible for choosing which posts were removed  —  that was handed to a third-party company, which set the keywords.

China almost immediately saw that the frenzy over fake news in Western democracies was an opportunity to expand censorship over their country’s online activity. Chinese officials soon began labeling articles critical of their rule “假新闻”: fake news.

From propaganda to censorship

The blurring of debunking and censorship happened quickly. Facebook had already had a long history of generally obeying foreign governments’ requests to suppress access to content: Between July and December 2015, the company blocked as many as 55,000 pieces of content in about 20 countries. But the new content-suppression mechanism became a faster and far more effective tool for authoritarian governments. Whereas previously the authorities had to make requests, their flaggers and supporters could now do the job for them.

In April 2016, Turkey became the first country to use the content-suppression software to not just restrict circulation and flag stories but also to remove content altogether. Articles deemed “insulting to the president” or to “Turkish identity” often evaporated from Facebook. Zeynep Gülec, a self-exiled former reporter for the newspaper Hürriyet, published an open letter in which she said “fighting for media freedom in Turkey was always hard, but with Facebook’s new tool it has become impossible.”

China, for its part, accepted Facebook’s opening to its market after delegating the fact-checking responsibility to Zhenli, a newly created Chinese company based in Beijing linked to senior Communist officials and staffed by veterans of state-run news agencies.

Back in the U.S., the effects of Facebook’s content filtering were less monolithic but no less momentous. The rollout of the system met with a fierce public backlash and a joint letter from the editors-in-chief of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and more than 50 other daily newspapers, giving Zuckerberg a lesson about both the U.S. First Amendment and the costs of playing ball with the Beijing regime.

A faster and far more effective tool for authoritarian governments.

Facebook, which had hired an editorial staff to help manage the filtering, became the focus of intense partisan criticism, particularly from Republicans who said the mechanism was “rigged.” President Trump, for his part, railed against the “pathetic fact-checkers” and “Mark Zuckercrook.” Democrats also attacked the mechanism after a series of embarrassing deletions of ironic posts and those examining troubling issues, such as gun violence and pedophilia. The civil liberties group ACLU filed several suits against the Palo Alto platform for limiting free speech, even when it is false.

Meanwhile, despite the 700 million potential users in China, the development of the past six months that matters most to Mark Zuckerberg is rooted in the U.S., where more and more of the most extreme users on both sides of the political spectrum have begun deleting their Facebook accounts, passing their time instead on two brand new alternative social media platforms that avoided any filtering. Their names, perhaps unsurprisingly, are Rightbook and Leftbook.

~ Grif

 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Flashback: Military-aviation website forecasts U.S. economic collapse & massive depopulation by 2025

By now, no doubt you are aware of speculations that the novel Wuhan coronavirus (or SARS2) is not a natural phenomenon, but rather a product of bioengineering, contrived in some diabolical laboratory.

See FOTM‘s Deplorable Patriot’s “Is Covid-19 man made and released from a Wuhan lab? Evidence of genome editing”.

Bolstering that claim is the curious fact that the Wuhan virus is unlike other  corona flu viruses in significant ways, including the Wuhan having its most deadly effects on the elderly instead of the young.

Some say that the Wuhan virus might have been bioengineered by China to damage President Trump and the United States. As an example, Kelleigh Nelson wrote in a March 2, 2020 article for News With Views:

Trump’s trade demands and tariffs literally brought Red China’s economy to its knees. Perhaps the Covid-19 virus was turned loose to bring the rest of the world’s economies to the same level.  Since Trump took office, America’s economy has been booming, but both Red China and America’s socialist democrats would love to see us suffer a recession. This raging virus has already destroyed $3.8 trillion in stock market value. The Chinese have set a trap for Trump as Cliff Kincaid reported and it’s ugly.

All of which reminded me of a post I’d written for another, long since inactive blog nearly 5 years ago in May 2015, citing a military-aviation website Deagel.com‘s forecast that in 2025, the United States would be economically ruined and massively depopulated. Five years ago, that contention seemed preposterous and inconceivable. In light of the Wuhan virus’ continuing devastation of the U.S. and global economy, Deagel.com‘s forecast deserves a revisit.

Below is my May 2015 post in its entirety, followed by Deagel.com‘s updated revised forecast.

______________________________________________________

Original Post of May 2015

Deagel.com, a military equipment and civil aviation guide website, is causing a buzz on the Internet for its original dire forecast that in a mere 10 years, by the year 2025, the United States would be unrecognizable, a shadow of its former self. Specifically, the U.S.‘s:

  • Population will be reduced by 254 million (or 78%), plummeting from today’s 318,890,000 to 64,879,100. 
  • GDP will be reduced by $16.54 trillion, plummeting from today’s $17.42 trillion to $881.804 billion.
  • Power purchase parity (PPP) will be reduced by $45,739, plummeting from today’s $54,800 to $9,061.

What is Deagel.com? Wikipedia does not have an entry on Deagel.com. This is what the precious metals website Silver Doctors says about Deagel.com:

Deagel.com is a military equipment and civil aviation guide website. I have spent time trying to figure out who is behind iit and whether or not it is legitimate – and what the purpose of it is. Certainly it seems legitimate as a catalog of military equipment, the corporations which manufacture the equipment and the Government organizations involved with anything related to the military.

Here’s a screenshot of Deagel.com‘s home page:

Deagle.com1

In a statement about its forecast, Deagel.com claims that:

  • Its forecasts employ mainly data from two sources:
    • Institutions such as the CIA, IMF, UN, and USG (U.S. government).
    • “Shadow sources such as Internet gurus, unsigned reports and others.”
  • Governments lie. Like the economic lies that communist regimes told their people and the world, present-day governments of seemingly-affluent countries like the United States also generate fake statistics about their economies.
  • The implosion of the U.S. will be triggered by a financial and economic collapse.
  • That, in turn, will result in a massive loss of population from deaths and out-migration.

Here’s Deagel.com‘s statement in its entirety:

There have been many questions about the countries forecast specially the one focusing on the United States of America (USA). They won’t be answered one by one but below you can find some explanation, thoughts and reflections. We are going to keep this as short as possible. The majority of the economic and demographic data used in the making of the forecasts is widely available by institutions such as the CIA, IMF, UN, USG, etc. You can see the most relevant data at every single country’s page. There is a tiny part of data coming from a variety of shadow sources such as Internet gurus, unsigned reports and others. But all these sources are from the internet and are of public domain for at least a minority. For example, several years ago Dagong, the Chinese ratings agency, published a report analyzing the physical economy of the States comparing it with those of China, Germany and Japan. The conclusion was that the US GDP was something between $5 to $10 trillion instead of $15 trillion as officially reported by the USG. We assume that the official data, especially economic, released by governments is fake, cooked or distorted in some degree. Historically it is well known that the former Soviet Union was making up fake statistics years before its collapse. Western as well as other countries are making up their numbers today to conceal their real state of affairs. We are sure that many people out there can find government statistics in their own countries that by their own personal experience are hard to believe or are so optimistic that may belong to a different country. Despite the numeric data “quantity” there is a “quality” model which has not a direct translation into numeric data. The 2014 strain of Ebola has a death rate of 50-60% but try to imagine what would happen if there is a pandemic of Ebola with hundreds of thousands or millions infected with the virus. So far the few cases of Ebola-infected people have “enjoyed” intensive healthcare with anti-viral and breathing assistance but above all with abundant human support by Physicians and nurses. In a pandemic scenario that kind of healthcare won’t be available for the overwhelming number of infected leading to a dramatic increase of the death rate due to the lack of proper healthcare. The “quality” factor is that the death rate could increase to 80-90% in a pandemic scenario from the stated 50-60% rate. The figure itself is not important what is relevant is the fact that the scenario can evolve beyond the initial conditions from a 50% death toll to more than 90%. By the way, no pandemic or nuclear war is included in the forecast. The key element to understand the process that the USA will enter in the upcoming decade is migration. In the past, specially in the 20th century, the key factor that allowed the USA to rise to its colossus status was immigration with the benefits of a demographic expansion supporting the credit expansion and the brain drain from the rest of the world benefiting the States. The collapse of the Western financial system will wipe out the standard of living of its population while ending ponzi schemes such as the stock exchange and the pension funds. The population will be hit so badly by a full array of bubbles and ponzi schemes that the migration engine will start to work in reverse accelerating itself due to ripple effects thus leading to the demise of the States. This unseen situation for the States will develop itself in a cascade pattern with unprecedented and devastating effects for the economy. Jobs offshoring will surely end with many American Corporations relocating overseas thus becoming foreign Corporations!!!! We see a significant part of the American population migrating to Latin America and Asia while migration to Europe – suffering a similar illness – won’t be relevant. Nevertheless the death toll will be horrible. Take into account that the Soviet Union’s population was poorer than the Americans nowadays or even then. The ex-Soviets suffered during the following struggle in the 1990s with a significant death toll and the loss of national pride. Might we say “Twice the pride, double the fall”? Nope. The American standard of living is one of the highest, far more than double of the Soviets while having added a services economy that will be gone along with the financial system. When pensioners see their retirement disappear in front of their eyes and there are no servicing jobs you can imagine what is going to happen next. At least younger people can migrate. Never in human history were so many elders among the population. In past centuries people were lucky to get to their 30s or 40s. The American downfall is set to be far worse than the Soviet Union’s one. A confluence of crisis with a devastating result. The Demographic crisis in the former Soviet Union countries has extended for over two decades, if we accept that it ended early in this decade (2010s). The demographic crisis will hit the World in the near future and is projected to last between three and eight decades more or less depending on technological breakthrough and environmental issues. The aftermath is more likely a frozen picture with the population numbers staying the same for a very, very long period of time. The countries forecast population numbers do reflect birth/deaths but also migratory movements. Many countries are going to increase their gross population due to immigration while their native population may shrink. Over the past two thousand years we have witnessed the Western civilization built around the Mediterranean Sea shifting to Northern Europe and then by the mid 20th century shifting to an Atlantic axis to finally get centered into the States in the past 30 years. The next move will see the civilization being centered in Asia with Russia and China on top. Historically a change in the economic paradigm has resulted in a death toll that is rarely highlighted by mainstream historians. When the transition from rural areas to large cities happened in Europe many people unable to accept the new paradigm killed themselves. They killed themselves by a psychological factor. This is not mainstream but it is true. A new crisis joins old, well known patterns with new ones. Sorry to disappoint many of you with our forecast. It is getting worse and worse every year since the beginning of the pre-crisis in 2007. It is already said that this website is non-profit, built on spare time and we provide our information and services AS IS without further explanations and/or guarantees. We are not linked to any government in any way, shape or form. We are not a death or satanic cult or arms dealers as some BS is floating around the internet on this topic. Take into account that the forecast is nothing more than a model whether flawed or correct. It is not God’s word or a magic device that allows to foresee the future. Sunday, October 26th, 2014

The United States isn’t the only country for which Deagel.com has a dire forecast. Here are some other countries that will experience drastic population losses:

  1. United Kingdom: From 63,740,000 to 22,570,600
  2. Germany: From 80,990,000 to 48,123,620.
  3. Italy: 61,680,000 to 45,526,880.
  4. France: 66,260,000 to 43,548,080.
  5. Ireland: 4,830,000 to 1,506,920.
  6. Greece: 10,770,000 to 3,295,240
  7. Netherlands: 16,880,000 to 10,483,760
  8. Spain: 47,740,000 to 25,745,560
  9. Poland: 38,350,000 to 35,329,520
  10. Israel: 7,820,000 to 2,856,300
  11. Russia: 142,470,000 to 136,979,080
  12. Canada: 34,830,000 to 24,594,680
  13. Japan: 127,100,000 to 46,640,420.
  14. Taiwan: 23,360,000 to 15,431,900
  15. Australia: 22,510,000 to 8,882,220
  16. New Zealand: 4,400,000 to 3,398,200

Countries that will increase in population include:

  1. China: 1,350,000,000 to 1,360,720,000
  2. India: 1,240,000,000 to 1,357,200,000
  3. Indonesia: 253,610,000 to 269,846,400
  4. Pakistan: 196,170,000 to 222,018,120
  5. Brazil: 202,660,000 to 217,859,380
  6. Argentina: 43,020,000 to 44,104,700
  7. Colombia: 46,240,000 to 49,759,520
  8. Iran: 80,840,000 to 83,357,560

To see Deagel.com‘s 2025 forecasts for all 182 countries, go here.

Silver Doctors writes: “I leave it up to the reader to decide whether or not this is a legitimate forecast from a legitimate organization. […] But, having said that, I have 100% conviction that the U.S. is heading toward a devastating financial and economic collapse that will trigger massive social upheaval and civil unrest. What just happened in Baltimore is small taste of what that will look like.”

Here are my critique and analysis:

  1. Deagel.com‘s flawed data: The website itself admits that governments, including the U.S. government, lie about their economic statistics. And yet Deagle.com says “most” of its data come from public information sources that include USG and other governments.
  2. Deagel.com‘s faux numerical precision: Despite its flawed data, the website manages to make forecasts 10 years into the future with numerical precision of specific population numbers and GDPs in exact dollar amounts.
  3. There does not appear to be a discernible logic for the order of countries in Deagel.com‘s list of 182 countries in 2025. The countries are arranged neither alphabetically, nor geographically (by region or continent), nor by their fortunes (decline or improvement), nor by the severity of their projected decline.
  4. If one assumes that the economic collapse of the U.S. dollar and of the U.S. economy would be the trigger event, that could explain why other western countries (Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and Japan would also decline. But why would China, whose economy is so dependent on the U.S. market for its exports, be exempt from the predicted precipitous decline, but instead is predicted to have a population increase of 10.72 million and only a slight $466 decrease in its PPP (from $12,900 to $12,566? That makes no sense.
  5. Making even less sense is that present-day 4th-world countries like Burkina Faso in Africa is projected to increase its population from 18,360,000 to 18,402,380, and its PPP from $1,700 to $1,841.

_______________________________________________________

Deagel.com’s Revised Forecast

Below is Deagel.com‘s revised forecast for 2025 as of this morning, April 2, 2020, for the same countries I’d listed in my 2015 post.

(A) Countries forecasted in 2015 to experience drastic population losses in five years by 2025 (Note that countries whose population loss is now forecasted to be more than in 2015 are colored red; countries who are now forecasted to have less population loss are colored green):

  1. United States of America: from 326,620,000 to 99,553,100 — a loss in population of 227,066,900 or 69.52%.
  2. United Kingdom: from 65,650,000 to 14,517,860.
  3. Germany: from 80,590,000 to 28,134,920.
  4. Italy: 62,140,000 to 43,760,260.
  5. France: 67,100,000 to 39,114,580.
  6. Ireland: 5,010,000 to 1,318,740.
  7. Greece: 10,770,000 to 8,055,900
  8. Netherlands: 17,080,000 to 16,809,740
  9. Spain: 48,960,000 to 27,763,280
  10. Poland: 38,480,000 to 33,239,780
  11. Israel: 8,300,000 to 3,982,480
  12. Russia: 142,260,000 to 141,830,780
  13. Canada: 35,620,000 to 26,315,760
  14. Japan: 127,100,000 to 46,640,420.
  15. Taiwan: 23,510,000 to 18,538,200
  16. Australia: 22,230,000 to 15,196,600
  17. New Zealand: 4,510,000 to 3,290,300

(B) Countries forecasted in 2015 to increase in population by 2025 (Note that countries that are now forecasted to decrease in population, albeit by a little, are colored red):

  1. China: 1,380,000,000 to 1,358,440,000 — a loss in population of 21,560,000 or 1.56%.
  2. India: 1,280,000,000 to 1,341,720,000
  3. Indonesia: 260,580,000 to 267,136,480
  4. Pakistan: 204,920,000 to 218,871,280
  5. Brazil: 207,350,000 to 210,314,920
  6. Argentina: 44,290,000 to 41,008,200 — a loss in population of 3,281,800 or 7.41%.
  7. Colombia: 47,700,000 to 49,240,520
  8. Iran: 82,020,000 to 81,976,680 — a loss in population of 43,320 or 0.05%.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Shocking: This is England!

A protest on Regent St. in London, UK:

Kalergi Plan, any one?

See:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Prince Harry and Meghan quit Royal Family

After British taxpayers spent £32 million ($41.9 million) on their wedding less than two years ago in May 2018, and $3 million on refurbishing their residence Frogmore Cottage, Prince Harry and his D-list Hollywood-actress wife Meghan Markle just announced they’re leaving the royal family.

Latest instance of Meghan bossing Prince Harry around, directing him to sit down, Jan. 7, 2020.

From the New York Post‘s Page Six:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are quitting the royal family, they announced Wednesday.

In an extraordinary move — and after spending six weeks away in a multimillion-dollar bolthole in Canada — the couple said they wanted to take a “progressive new role” and leave their roles as “senior” royals.

The couple said they wanted to make their own money, adding they will now split their time between the UK and North America.

In the unprecedented statement, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said: “After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen. It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment. We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity. We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”

Harry and Meghan’s marriage has been blighted by rows over their spending — and their desperate attempt at privacy — as they even refused to release where their son, Archie, was born, and who his godparents were.

But critics lambasted them as they continued to accept money from the British taxpayer.

In a documentary filmed in South Africa, the pair said they were unhappy — and Harry, 35, admitted that he had fallen out with his older brother, Prince William.

Although they were dubbed the “Fab Four,” William, wife Kate Middleton and Harry and Meghan, 38, split their royal foundation last year.

Harry and Meghan are launching their own Sussex Royal Foundation shortly.

So Harry, known as being dim-witted, is really severing his ties to not just his brother, William, but the royal family, whom Meghan had called “the family she never had” after ghosting her own father, half-siblings and uncles. Will he and Meghan give up their royal titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

According to BBC correspondent Jonny Dymond:

A palace source tells the BBC that senior members of the Royal family feel “hurt” by the announcement that Harry and Meghan are to withdraw from their current Royal roles. The source confirmed that no members of the royal family were consulted.

To which journalist and TV broadcaster Piers Morgan tweets:

Wow. What a disgraceful way to treat The Queen. Shame on Harry & Meghan.

Sydney Morning Herald‘s London correspondent Latika M. Bourke tweets:

Queen ‘deeply upset’. [Princes] Charles and William ‘incandescent with rage’ reports

For those interested in more analysis of this move by the toxic duo, see Harry Markle’s “The Sweaty Sussex Showdown Begins“.

See also these FOTM posts on the duo:

Update (Jan. 9, 2020):

It is reported that Harry and Meghan, shockingly left behind their infant 8-months-old son Archie (assuming he’s real) when the two “returned” to the UK. Yesterday, after the Toxic Duo’s ultimatum hit the news, Meghan bailed out of the UK to return to Canada, reportedly Vancouver, to “rejoin” Archie, leaving Harry to negotiate with the Royal Family. (Daily Mail)

(1) This means the Toxic Duo had always intended their “return” to the UK to be temporary — just long enough to issue their ultimatum and bring the Royal Family to heel.

(2) The Toxic Duo didn’t bring Archie with them but left him in Canada because the baby is human hostage. Archie is their weapon in their negotiations with the Royal Family: “You give us what we want! If not, you’ll never see Archie, 7th in line to the throne, again.”

That woman, Meghan Markle, is truly evil — a malignant narcissist, the worst kind of narcissist.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Rotten fruit of Europe’s open-door policy: New Year’s Eve riot in EU capital Brussels

For some time now, Fellowship of the Minds hasn’t posted much on Muslim shenanigans in Europe, but that doesn’t mean all is peaceful and quiet.

Here’s a recent whopper of an incident when some 50-60,000 people took part in the New Year celebrations at the Atomium, a landmark building in Brussels, originally constructed for the 1958 Brussels World Expo. Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the de facto capital of the European Union (EU).

Sarah Crew reports for The Bulletin that on New Year’s Eve, Dec. 31, 2019, “disturbances” in Brussels involved:

  • The throwing of projectiles.
  • A tram that had its windows broken.
  • A damaged bus shelter.
  • 82 bins, 19 cars, two mopeds, and 9 apartments set on fire.
  • A collapse balcony in Schaerbeek while people were standing on it.
  • 165 emergency calls for medical assistance; 50 to homes and 115 to public streets.
  • A 21-year-old man with a serious knife wound.
  • During the firework display at the Atomium, there were 23 responses and 10 ambulance transfers. This was in addition to 60 interventions and five ambulance transfers during the celebrations at Palais 10 and 12 in Heysel.
  • Police made 185 administrative and 26 judicial arrests.
  • By the next (New Year) morning, six people were charged by the Brussels prosecutor — three were accused of theft, the other three were charged with domestic violence.
  • Police had set up a taskforce to identify the perpetrators of the “disturbances” and called on the public, media and local businesses to share any images they have. Spokesperson Denis Goeman said, “The aim is to identify as many rioters as possible and to prosecute them in order to send the message that such acts are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.”

The New Year’s Eve violence was actually better handled and coordinated by the police, after criticism of police handling of New Year’s Eve violence in 2019, which included riots in Molenbeek.

Brussels-Ixelles police spokesperson Olivier Slosse said police coordination worked well, “Fire services were able to work in total security. These are dramatic figures, but police quickly intervened in very different areas. The situations did not have time to gain momentum in the same place. We have the impression that we managed to prevent the situation from escalating to the point of last year.”

@DVATW tweeted this video of the New Year’s Eve “disturbances” in the EU capital:

The tweets in response to the video all say the rioters were Muslim “immigrants”. Below is a sample of the comments:

“When this same Mob were at the gates of Vienna in 1529 & 1683 it was called INVASION. Now it’s call the Diversification of Europe. Wake-Up!!!”

“Invite the 3rd world…….”

“Europe will crumble Europeans will perish Stringent border controls are a necessity in order for any chance of survival.”

“It is a problem all across Europe, and North America unfortunately and people need to reclaim the rights that are being eradicated by Globalist Government Officials by voting them out at each and every opportunity. The next step they will use against us is ‘declaring martial law’.”

“No doubt the MSM will be all over this tomorrow, no? Oh well”

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Brexit’s sore losers are contemptuous elitists just like the American Left

Do you remember this?

And this?

The above are Democrats in the U.S. screaming in frustration after their candidate Hillary “Deplorables” Clinton, the chosen of the globalists (see “The biggest Wall Street whores among 2016 presidential candidates are…” and “Wall Street owns Clintons; Goldman Sachs biggest donor“), lost to Donald Trump.

The Left in the U.K. are just like the Left in the United States.

On December 12, 2019, U.K. voters delivered a devastating defeat to the globalist Labour Party by voting for PM Boris Johnson’s pro-Brexit Conservative Party. Voters gave Johnson the largest Tory margin since the days of Margaret Thatcher. (The Economist)

And this is how the UK Left reacted to their resounding defeat, with riots, denial, and screaming.

And like the American Left, the contemptuous, elitist U.K. Left also dismiss their opponents, many of them are working class, by calling them stupid, uneducated, ignorant, racist and misogynist.

See also “Elites’ contempt for America’s white middle class”.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

George Soros banned from 6 countries

Though he is 89 years old, George Soros — through his Open Society Foundations, to which he’s donated more than $32 billion — continues to foment turmoil, unrest and mischief across the world.

In the United States, Soros has/had his hand in the Antifa, the Ferguson race riots, the “caravans” of Central American “migrants,” and the “whistleblower” who ignited the Demonrats’ current efforts to impeach President Trump. In Europe, Soros is behind the flood of “refugees” and “migrants,” Ukraine, “climate change” activist Great Thunberg, and the Brexit chaos.

Some countries, however, have taken steps to expel and ban Soros, his operatives, and his Open Society. In chronological order, the six countries are:

  1. Pakistan
  2. Poland
  3. Turkey
  4. Russia
  5. Hungary
  6. Philippines

While not outright banning him, the Israeli government has said Soros is not welcome there.

The only question is why Soros still has not been banned from the United States.

Since August 2017, there is a “White House petition to declare George Soros a terrorist and seize all of his related organizations’ assets under RICO and NDAA law,” which has been signed by 197,385 people — enough to get a response from the White House. To sign the petition, go here.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0