Category Archives: #Brexit

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 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 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 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 0
 

George Soros admits he’s impeded by Trump to turn U.S. socialist

A week ago, on Oct. 26, 2019, 89-year-old billionaire George Soros, who has spent his fortune promoting open borders and leftwing politicians, media, and organizations, said he has been impeded by opponents, including President Trump, in his lifelong quest to transform the United States into socialism, which he calls “open society”.

Soros said that in an interview on Michel Martin’s  All Things Considered on National Public Radio (NPR). Although NPR is funded by U.S. taxpayers, Soros’ Open Society Foundations, to which he had given more than $32 billion, is a financial supporter of NPR — as much as $1.8 million in 2011.

Between the election of President Trump and Britain’s ongoing debate over Brexit, Soros recognizes that populism is on the rise and that his brand of liberal democracy is faltering. He said:

“When I got involved in what I call political philanthropy some 40 years ago, the open society idea was on the ascendant — closed societies were opening up. And now, open societies are on the defensive and dictatorships are on the rise. I have to admit that the tide has turned against me, but I don’t think that I have failed. If you really have principles that you believe in, then you have to fight for them — win or lose.”

Soros said his priority now is fighting President Trump’s reelection — that’s some “promotion of democracy”!. Stopping short of endorsing her, Soros said Sen. Fauxcohontas Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the favored candidate of the Demonrat Party elites, is “the clear-cut person to beat.”

Penny Starr of Breitbart points out that NPR portrays Soros as a benign philanthropist who only wants to “promote democracy” in some 120 countries across the world. That “promotion of democracy” included a $25,100 donation to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Suggesting that any criticism of Soros is motivated by rank anti-Semitism, never mind the fact that Soros had admitted helping Nazis to confiscate property from Jews, NPR states that “Soros, who is Jewish and a survivor of the Nazi occupation of Hungary, has also been a frequent target of conspiracy theorists, white nationalists and neo-Nazis.”

Here is the 1998 60 Minutes interview that YouTube repeatedly took down, in which Soros admitted he had helped Nazis against Jews. Below is my transcription:

Steve Croft (“60 Minutes” interviewer: “My understanding is that you went out with this [Nazi] protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson…and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

Soros, knodding his head in the affirmative: “Yes.”

Croft: “That sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

Soros, shaking his head: “No. Not at all, not at all.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

London Mayor Sadiq Khan gets heckled by Brexit protesters outside Parliament

Look who gets armed body guards while the subjects in his city have no right to self defense.

The comments on the YouTube video indicate that Londoners are completely fed up with him. Maybe next time when they vote they’ll remember that elections have consequences.

And man, I didn’t realize what a short man Sadiq is. Looks like he’s not even 5 feet tall.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Piers Morgan: The Left have become unbearable, and are fueling populism across the world

Piers Morgan, 54, is an English journalist, broadcaster and TV personality.

I was no fan of Morgan. He was especially loathsome when he hosted Piers Morgan Live on CNN from 2011 to 2014, after which he returned to the UK.

On the Ben Shapiro Show last Sunday, August 18, 2019, Morgan launched into a stinging critique of the contemporary Left which had gone viral on Twitter, which just goes to show even a self-identified, pro-gun control liberal like Piers Morgan has had enough with so-called “liberals”.

Morgan said (beginning at the 8:26 mark):

“I think a lot of people who should be impartial journalists and masquerade as impartial journalists are now drifting toward being celebrities. And right now in America, in Trump’s America, the only way to be a celebrated journalist is predominantly to be a liberal, Trump-hating journalist, and that’s where it gets dangerous.

When I look at CNN for example, when I was there, the standards and practices around impartiality were extremely, extremely rigorously enforced. You could not remotely be seen to…partial politically. Now I look at CNN, I just see open sneering at Trump 24/7…. Things have changed: when I was there, you couldn’t do that, and I think that’s problematic. America needs CNN to be impartial. You know you have MSNBC on the left, you have Fox on the right, people have always understood that. If CNN itself becomes partial and partisan, I find that a big problem.

I find it a problem some of their reporters want to be big stars. You know anchors, they’re gonna be stars because they’re anchoring. When you’re a White House reporter or correspondent, you really should be doing the late-night chat shows? I don’t think so. So I think that there’s a line there which is getting crossed more and more, which I think is a problem for American people and their ability to cut through all this and get to the truth….

I have never known it like it is now, and I think it’s being massively exacerbated by social media…. It feels like we’ve gone back 2,000 years and we’re back into tribes. You have it with Trump here in America where it’s just blind. You have to be in one tribe or the other. You’re not allowed actually to say well, on the one hand he’s done good things here, here, here, on the other hand I don’t like what he’s doing here. It’s everything about this man, everything he does and says, every time he breaks wind, it offends me. Or I love him and everything he does is fantastic even when Trump does something ridiculous….

The most important thing is to maintain the ability to have a democratic debate with people, and to sit with people that you fundamentally don’t agree with, and to listen to things you find fundamentally offensive, but you actually respect someone’s right to think differently to you….

It’s the inability to have a debate without wanting to cancel people, to wrech their lives, to make them lose their jobs…. [Referring to universities in the UK and Berkeley, CA de-platforming speakers, i.e., not allowing invited speakers to speak] What is the point of being at university if you’re not going there to be challenged and to have your own views challenged….

(41:40) The self-righteousness of people that lose elections or referendums [referring to the Brexit referendum] … they say ‘No, you’re too stupid, no. Actually we have to do this all over again, we should ignore the result of this election because I know more than you, I’m more intelligent than you, you’re stupid people. That’s where we’ve got to, and if that is accepted, where every result is simply declared null and void and Liberals, let’s be honest, get what they want, democracy dies….”

Shapiro then asks Morgan if Brexit and President Trump are part of generalized phenomenon of populism in other countries in Europe as well, e.g., Italy, of a resistance to a “generalized elite” — “sneering…people who want to control your life from top down”. Morgan said [42:31 mark]:

Populism is rising because Liberals have become unbearable, and I speak as a Liberal, okay. In my core, I’m probably more liberal than not although fundamentally I see myself as a journalist and I’d like to see both sides of all this and I can argue both. But Liberals have become utterly, pathetically illiberal, and it’s a massive problem. What’s the point in calling yourself a Liberal if you don’t allow anyone else to have a different view? You know this snowflake culture that we operate in, the victimhood culture, the ‘everybody has to think a certain way, behave a certain way, everyone has to have a bleeding heart and tell you 20 things that are wrong with them’. I just think it’s all completely skewed to an environment where everyone’s offended by everything, and no one’s allowed to say a joke….

So … suddenly where are we? The Liberals get what they want, which is a humorless void where nothing happens, where no one dare do anything or laugh about anything or behave in any way that doesn’t suit their rigid way of leading a life. No, thanks.

So what’s happening around the world? Populism is rising because people are fed up with the PC culture, they’re fed up with snowflake [inaudible], they’re fed up with everyone being offended by everything, and they’re gravitating to forceful personalities…. I don’t agree with all of it, but I understand why the Liberals, my side if you like, are getting it so horribly wrong. They just want to tell people not just how to lead their lives, but if you don’t lead it the way I tell you to. It’s a kind of version of fascism: You don’t live the life the way I’m telling you to, then I’m gonna ruin your life. I’m gonna scream abuse at you, I’m gonna get you fired from your job, I’m gonna get you hounded by your family and friends. I’m gonna make you the most disgusting human in the world, because he said a joke ten years ago.

That’s the attitude we’re operating in. It takes forceful personalities to rise above it. Donald Trump rose up and went like Godzilla: ‘Okay, you want to fight? I’m here!’ And guess what, millions of people in Middle America went, ‘That’s our guy! That’s our guy, he’s the one that’s gonna help us.’ Same thing happening across Europe.”

And how will the Left react to Morgan’s critique? To quote two commenters on YouTube:

CNN’s headline on Monday reads: “Alt-Right Piers Morgan Sits Down with White Supremacist Ben Shapiro and Attacks American Journalism in Hate Fueled Tirade.”

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

UK comedian Jo Brand says, “throw acid at politicians instead of milkshakes”

Because battery acid attacks are hilarious! Just ask the Muslim women who are real victims of acid attacks.

How progressive and tolerant!

From The Sun: NIGEL Farage has accused comedian Jo Brand of “inciting violence” after she said politicians should have battery acid thrown at them instead of milkshakes.

The telly star, 61, was appearing on BBC Radio 4 when she joked about recent milkshake attacks on politicians, which included one hurled at the Brexit Party leader.

Farage, who had a banana and salted caramel Five Guys milkshake thrown on him while campaigning in Newcastle ahead of the EU elections last month, called for police to take action over ‘incitement of violence’.

Speaking on the Heresy show last night, Brand said: “Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate. And I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?”

She added: “That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy. But I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.

Responding to that today Farage said: “This is incitement of violence and the police need to act.”

Brendan Cox, whose Labour MP wife Jo Cox was murdered by a far-right fanatic in her own constituency in June 2016, tweeted: “I dislike Nigel Farage‘s politics profoundly. But I don’t think throwing stuff at politicians you disagree with is a good idea. It normalises violence and intimidation and we should consistently stand again it.”

Broadcasting watchdog Ofcom confirmed it had received 19 complaints from angry listeners since the show was broadcast.

The sick gag was met with howls of laughter from the studio audience and show host Victoria Coren Mitchell didn’t appear concerned by the remarks.

Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan said: “Disgusting. This is an incitement for people to throw acid at politicians. Shame on you, Jo Brand.”

Leave.EU tweeted: “Absolutely disgusting remark by so-called “comedian” Jo Brand, who suggested last night on @BBCRadio4 that we throw battery acid at our politicians.

“Is this sort of hate speech what we fund the @BBC for? Shameful!”

But fellow comedians defended the star, with Lee Hurst writing: “Jo Brand is a comedian. She has made a joke. You may not find it funny or you may find it funny. Comedy is subjective. If you criticise her because you like her target, but defend other jokes of a similar nature against targets you don’t like you are a hypocrite.

The BBC refused to apologise for the broadcast and said remarks on the comedy show were ‘not intended to be taken seriously’.

A spokeswoman said: “Heresy is a long-running comedy programme where, as the title implies and as our listeners know, panellists often say things which are deliberately provocative and go against societal norms but are not intended to be taken seriously.”

Read the whole story here.

Listen to her “comedy” here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Failure of Polls: 2019 Australia federal election

Political polls are no longer reliable because they are no longer predictive of election results.

The UK Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, in which 51.9% of those voting supported leaving the EU, was the first sign. 78% of phone polls had predicted that Remain would win; only two online pollsters, Kantar TNS and Opinium, forecasted a Leave victory just ahead of the vote. (Wikipedia)

The U.S. presidential election on November 8, 2016, in which polls had predicted a Hillary Clinton win, was the second sign.

Last Saturday’s Australian federal election is the latest indicator of the failure of polls.

On May 18, 2019, Australia conducted a nation-wide election to elect members of the 46th Parliament: All 151 seats in the House of Representatives (lower house) and 40 of the 76 seats in the Senate (upper house).

Unlike many other democracies, Australia has mandatory voting for all citizens aged 18 and over – or they risk a fine. This year has seen a record 96.8% enrollment rate. In contrast, the voter turnout for the most recent US and UK elections were an estimated 55% and 69% respectively. (BBC)

What this means is that in the case of Australia, the accuracy of pre-election polls would not be affected by voter turnout, which should lend even greater confidence in the accuracy of those polls. As the BBC confidently declared a day before the election:

Australians are voting in a closely-fought general election on Saturday. The poll will decide whether the conservative Liberal-National Coalition wins a third term or is replaced by a Labor administration led by Bill Shorten.

And what were the polls saying?

The graph below shows that although opinion polls have narrowed in recent weeks, the leftist Australian Labor Party still had the edge on a two-party preferred basis on the eve of election day.

The experts also predicted a Labor win:

  • Professor Sally Young, a politics expert from the University of Melbourne, said there was public cynicism about the major parties, and predicted that the bitter party infighting that led to Scott Morrison becoming PM only last August, was likely to harm the government’s standing with voters. Referring to Morrison’s ousting of his predecessor, Young declared: “They’re sick of the sniping and undermining. Knifing a leader – it never goes down well.”
  • Young also predicted that climate change would be a key election issue and that the government’s “lack of action on climate change” would be a critical factor in the election.
  • Citing unnamed “experts,” the BBC said that Morrison’s minority government “fears losing votes to more socially conservative minor parties and independents” in the northern state of Queensland, and is particularly vulnerable in Victoria in the south, where the “progressive” electorate had delivered a resounding victory to Labor in a state election five months ago.

Despite the polls and experts, and in spite of Morrison’s minority coalition government being consistently behind in the polls for the past three years, the government won a third term against the Labor opposition. As Wikipedia puts it:

The result of the 2019 election was in stark contrast to the aggregation of opinion polls conducted over the period of the 45th parliament and the 2019 election campaign. Apart from a few outliers, Labor had been ahead for the entire period, by as much as 56% on a two-party-preferred basis after Scott Morrison took over the leadership of the Liberal Party in August 2018—although during the campaign, Labor’s two-party estimate was between 51 and 52%.[67]

During the ABC’s [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] election coverage, election analyst Antony Green stated “At the moment, on these figures, it’s a bit of a spectacular failure of opinion polling.”—with the election results essentially a mirror image of the polls with the Coalition’s two-party vote at around 51%.[67]

CNN calls the election “a stunning turnaround after every opinion poll over the campaign pointed to a Labor victory. Analysts are now saying Labor lost an ‘unlosable’ election.”

To add insult to injury, not only did the leftist Labor Party lose the election, the formerly minority coalition government led by Morrison actually picked up the net two-seat swing it needed for a majority government. (ABC News)

Readers of FOTM had commented that they no longer answer phone polls. Nor do I.

We no longer respond to political polls because of our correct perception that, like the MSM, pollsters favor Democrats and are hostile to conservatives. I suspect also that many who still respond to polls don’t give honest answers, which is a prudent behavior given the many real instances of conservatives being publicly assaulted, denied service by businesses, and having their food and drinks contaminated by servers. See, for example:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

30 years ago, Jacob Rothschild predicted a global currency by 2018

On March 6, 1991, in a speech to Congress then-President George H. W Bush famously and very prematurely declared the beginning of a “new world order” following the Gulf War — the U.S.-led expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait:

“Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order…. A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”


Three years before in 1988, in an essay in The Economist (which is partly owned by the Rothschild family), Lord Jacob Rothschild, now 82, predicted that in 2018 the world would be united under a single currency, the phoenix.
Under the global monetary union, called the “phoenix zone,” administered by a global central bank, national economic boundaries would dissolve. “Tight constraints” would be imposed on national governments, and there would be no national monetary policy. In effect, nation-states would lose their economic sovereignty, supplanted by a global government — a new world order — in fact if not in name.

Thanks to The Free Thought Project, below is an excerpt from Jacob Rothschild’s article, “Ready for the Phoenix,” The Economist, January 9, 1988, pp. 9-10.

Ready for the Phoenix
Thirty years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.
The New World Economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.…
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments.In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.…
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

Writing for The Free Thought Project, Jay Syrmopoulos points out:

[I]t must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives….
Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.

Of course, since it is 2018, we now know that Jacob Rothschild’s prediction of 30 years ago did not come true, thanks to the Revolt of the Deplorables who, in 2016, elected a man named Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, whose campaign promise is to “make America great again” by putting America’s national interests first, which got him eternal enmity from the globalists.
Trump did exactly that in the just-concluded G-7 Summit in Toronto, Canada, in which he fought for fairer trade agreements for the United States, instead of continue the massive trade imbalances and deficits of previous U.S. presidents — to howls from our supposed French, German and Canadian “allies”.

See “Trump won’t endorse G7 statement,” New York Post, June 9, 2018.

God bless President Trump, the wrench in the Rothschilds’ and other globalists’ machinations for a one-world government!

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0