Glass Half Full

What If The Fever Has Broken And We Will All Benefit?

Dec 02, 2024

“To achieve world government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” George Brock Chisholm, the first D-G of the WHO.

Given the doom and gloom of my last offering – and also taking account of the possibility that, even if 'they' do attempt to take Trump out again they may prove to be as inept as they've been thusfar – I thought I'd take a stab at what the world might look like if he makes it to January and some considerable distance beyond. Not just for Americans; for all of us because, while the world isn't heterogenous and different blocs will be affected in different ways, it is nonetheless true that without the US on board, much that was heading our way might be deflected, or perhaps even stopped in its tracks.

Some clues may be gleaned from his first term but, like all presidents, he had his eye on a second. Things are different now, especially as the past four years have given us a practical demonstration of at least some aspects of the Great Reset, as well as a heads-up as to what else the globalists have on their To-Do list and, in addition, Trump cannot run again. One might hope that he will feel able to follow through on his rhetoric more effectively on the second go-around. We are going to get our first clue when he addresses Biden's decision to partner with Zelensky in sending long range missiles into Russia itself:

“This is a spectacular escalation of the war in Ukraine by the lame duck Democratic administration—a reckless act with dire long-term consequences. If Donald Trump is duly inaugurated come Jan. 20 and that decision stays in force, we’ll know that the game is over, that the permanent bipartisan war party of the swamp has prevailed yet again....The notion that this time round Donald Trump has made a deal with the neocon-infested deep state is too awful to contemplate.”(1)

So, for now, I won't. Even though, as previously stated, it is altogether too quiet in Progressive World. We should also be mindful of the possibility of future reconfigurations of international interests. Currently, the EU and the UK are in lock-step on much of the nonsense – even though Starmer is determined to go completely off-road – but BRICS and the Global South aren't necessarily on the same page. The latter's gravitational pull might have an effect on the West, or it might not.

As it is, the fact that China and India are building coal-fired power stations at breakneck speed,(2) paying lip-service to the alleged desperate need to 'tackle the climate crisis', doesn't seem to have weakened the carbon scam in the West or, if it has, the cracks aren't showing yet. It seems that the normalisation of the blatantly illogical has been remarkably effective in the 'developed world'. But if we want to know the detail of what our elders and betters have in mind, they've just told us once again, while we were distracted by the US election and the looming possibility of a global conflict.

In September, the UN – increasingly their weapon of choice – held yet another all-expenses paid jamboree for the great and the good at its headquarters in New York. The Unelected Nobodies, the ultimate 'bubble people', were accompanied by a whole gaggle of movers and shakers, who were cloistered and fawned upon. Their objective has been unchanged for decades:

“The attendees were not only statesmen from all over the world but also the biggest financial firms and media outfits, along with representatives of the largest universities and nonprofits. All of these forces seem to be coalescing at once, as if they all want to be part of the future. And that future is one of global governance wherein the nation-state is eventually reduced to pure cosmetics with no operational power.”(3)

In other words, the globalist elite, detached from normal people and contemptuous of the nation-state, a concept that they regard as passé and embarrassing. There were there to rubber stamp their “Pact for the Future”, which is merely the latest iteration of globalese-laden waffle, designed to be both impenetrable and capable of any interpretation that suits come the relevant time. Off-Guardian quotes a typical example – plucked randomly from 81 pages of similarly meaningless guff:

“Enhancing cooperation with stakeholders, including civil society, academia, the scientific and technological community and the private sector, and encouraging intergenerational partnerships, by promoting a whole-of society approach, to share best practices and develop innovative, long-term and forward-thinking ideas in order to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations.”(4)

There's skill involved in writing in that fashion, although it's not one that I'm keen to acquire. The shopping-list is a familiar one – all the usual suspects are present and correct. Climate change, misinformation, hate speech and others, all characterised as “complex global shocks”(5) and all incapable of being addressed by puny countries alone. Instead, naturally, a global response will be required and which organisation would be best-placed to respond? You've guessed it. Only the UN could possibly meet the challenge to, amongst other equally lofty (and authoritarian) goals, “foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space that respects, protects and promotes human rights [and] advance responsible, equitable and interoperable data governance approaches”(6) which, translated, means that they are intending to censor free speech, globally. And then brainwash us with Big Brother's approved narrative – and soon:

“We commit, by 2030 to: Design and roll out digital media and information literacy curricula to ensure that all users have the skills and knowledge to safely and critically interact with content and with information providers and to enhance resilience against the harmful impacts of misinformation and disinformation.”(7)

The globalists' hive mind has become progressively exercised by the realisation that their control of the information flow has been comprehensively undermined by the inexorable rise of the internet, which caters for alternative narratives. It's come to a pretty pass when the likes of CNN and MSNBC have lower ratings than the Hallmark Channel and its 'Countdown to Christmas'.(8) The Axios boss recently had an on-stage meltdown, responding to Musk's assertion that Twitter/X is the media now by saying “My message to Elon Musk is bullshit – you are not the media”,(9) which possibly didn't come out precisely as intended, but is nonetheless emphatic. But when the ruling elite have gone to the trouble of legalising the propagandising of American citizens,(10) one can appreciate the angst when some Canadian happens along and detonates their monopoly.

The UN and other assorted Leftists cannot abide the fact that they are being dissed, in their view, and they are really very keen to regain the initiative. How else can they save the world? Hence, 'hate speech' and 'misinformation' – two delightfully malleable concepts which they can modify every day, according to needs – must be ruthlessly policed. The Global Digital Compact is, therefore, the ideal solution, not just in providing a “”framework” for controlling online accountability criteria and standards for digital platforms and users to address disinformation, hate speech and other harmful online content”-(11) yet another example of the deathless prose so beloved of the tyrant class – but also in somehow policing elections, for some unexplained but no doubt ignoble reason.

The legacy media are also desperate to regain control and Western governments, of all stripes, are in the process of passing as many repressive speech laws as possible. Ireland, the Down-Unders, the UK, the EU – they're all at it and the police and the judiciary are doing their bit to punish dissenters, pour encourager les autres. It doesn't much matter what they've actually done. A judge in the UK openly stated as much whilst sentencing some poor sap for violent disorder on the basis that she livestreamed a group of men with planks of wood and metal poles making racist comments as she walked home from work. Apparently, she was deserving of “immediate custody, with the need for deterrence being acute”.(12)

She will be cooling her jets for nine months at an all-inclusive government facility despite being uninvolved in any sort of violence. Then again, she lives in a country that records non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), which plug the hurty feelings gap by recording incidents when 'hate' has been deployed, but not to the criminal threshold.(13) Entirely arbitrary and subjective – now being used to hassle nine-year-olds' schoolyard taunts -(14) and a transparent attempt to police dissent, brought in through the backdoor via secondary legislation. There will be more of the same and, increasingly, the martinets aren't trying overly hard to hide their true intentions.

Germany is also transforming into a totalitarian utopia. There you can criticise a judge who fined a Syrian 'refugee' €3,000 for raping a 15 year-old girl – with no jail time – and be fined almost twice as much for doing so. Apparently, the Syrian was “well on the way to becoming a completely normal citizen here” and, in any event, the rape intensity was “at the lower end”.(15) The judge didn't appreciate being referred to in a “defamatory manner”,(16) a foible that is increasingly evident in thin-skinned bureaucrats who are in the business of authorising raids on, and persecution of, critics who insult them by referring to them in horrid ways such as “idiot” and the “the worst foreign minister ever.”(17) Anyone who criticises these tactics is “supporting right-wing extremism”.(18) The German state is quite a long way down the track, hand-in-hand with Starmer's UK and three-quarters of Germans believe that people – especially the young and those who hold conservative viewpoints - are self-censoring.(19)

And, under the auspices of the UN, that is all fine and dandy. It appears that the founders had bad intentions from the very beginning, as their Universal Declaration of Human Rights – whilst effusive in its detailing of all the fundamental rights of man – included a caveat, tucked away in Article 29(2):

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”(20)

Or, in less elevated (and more easily digestible) prose, there are limitations to all the rights previously delineated if the authorities deem them necessary for the sake of preserving “morality, public order and the general welfare”. So, after all the fine talk, it all boils down to this; if the authorities form a subjective belief that one of the fundamental rights – such as freedom of speech or the right to free assembly – needs to be legislated away, they can do just that. All it takes is a crisis or two and emergency measures to counter 'disinformation' can easily be imposed, as we've seen already with the mass censorship during the 'pandemic'.

Speaking of which, it wasn't just the right to dissent and the right to assemble that were trampled underfoot. The UN were explicit in their advocacy for as mandatory a 'vaccination' regime as possible when announcing that while “any mandatory vaccination regime needs flexibilities for appropriate exceptions...it may be acceptable to condition the exercise of certain other rights and liberties – such as access to schools, hospitals, or other public, or publicly accessible, spaces – on vaccination.”(21)

We all experienced something of that order and, because it is now hardwired into the governmental toolkit, it is highly likely that we will soon be reacquainted with it. The 'greater good' approach, simply a retread mimicking the collectivist impulses of previous generations of fascists and totalitarians, is the perfect tool as it is an entirely subjective judgement that is exercised by those in power and it trumps all else. And so it is wielded relentlessly across domains, not least in the realm of 'climate change', the alpha and the omega of the globalists' agenda as it is the vehicle for so much of the repression that they wish to impose.

The recent spectacle of the World Health Assembly and the Pandemic Treaty that wasn't (yet) was almost certainly contrived to distract from any comprehensive analysis of the amendments and resolutions that were passed, one of which – which wasn't even debated – was a resolution that labelled much human activity a 'potential threat to health', thus allowing the WHO (another UN agency) to lay stakes its claim as climate supremo. No time was wasted and Tedros the Terrorist was given the following mandate:

“i) develop a “results-based, needs-orientated and capabilities-driven global WHO plan of action on climate change and health,” ii) serve as a global leader in the field of climate change and health by establishing a WHO Roadmap to Net Zero by 2030, and iii) report back to future WHA sessions.”(22)

Just like that. The planet is alternatively sinking or boiling according to the never-knowingly understated Secretary-General Gutteres or, memorably, “in the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.”(23)(24)(25) Other UN entities, deaf to hyperbole, similarly piled on with more bonkers declarations about the “climate-changed child”, the previously unknown “interconnection between climate change and gender inequality” and a clarion call to enhance “the potential of culture for global climate action.”(26)(27)(28)

Tedros is adamant that “the climate crisis is a health crisis”,(29) without feeling the need to provide any evidence to support his verbiage. He prefers to ignore the fact that rising CO2 (of whatever provenance) has increased plant growth and enhanced the world's ability to feed 8 billion souls.(30) But none of it has ever had to make sense or survive a touch of light scrutiny, because the bubble people have never been obliged to prove their case – they simply assert it and carry on regardless, because they can.

And so the dissonance continues to deepen, exemplified by the recently concluded COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP standing for Conference of Parties). As has become the norm, the soon-to-overwhelm-us 'climate crisis' wasn't actually the focus of the meeting. How could it be when the developing nations (a class that includes India, China and the Middle Eastern oil states) are under no obligation to cut emissions, all the while virtue-signalling Britain thinks it's “in prime position to lead the way in phasing out coal power around the world” by banning new coal mines?(31) China, as is her wont, doubled down on the mickey-taking by securing “80% of the world's solar market with it's coal-fired economy”.(32) Welcome to Clown World.

Instead it was all about the filthy lucre, as per usual, with the poorer nations exacting their reward for doing the globalists' bidding. This now stands at $300 billion a year to 'fight climate change' by not actually reducing emissions, paid for by you and I.(33) It seems that, after nearly 30 years of pretending, they can't be bothered any more. It also seems like a lot of going with the flow, but with no real enthusiasm or commitment. For the second COP in a row, the host nation used the jamboree as an opportunity to meet potential investors in its oil and gas sectors, an interesting strategy but not one you would pursue if you bought into the boiling oceans BS.(34)

But it won't stop Tedros crafting more 'soft laws' that aren't laws at all, but can be presented as such by those who are really the ones who want them. Which would be the developed nations. There will be more “UN declarations, strategies, plans-of-action, and agendas ─ will complement the existing “hard laws” of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Protocol.”(35) Like every other right that they will attempt to circumvent, the UN's 'right to food' policy is also being sacrificed on the altar of the climate agenda and, since the lock-downs of 2020, hundreds of millions of people have been pushed to extreme poverty and hunger. As we know, it hasn't been easy in the West, either.

But foundational principles, however flawed and inadequate, are now only fit to be gerrymandered. An organisation that proclaimed itself the servant of 'The Peoples' - as represented by the leadership of each Member State – which would exist “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”(36) “now openly does the bidding of corporate authoritarians from the tax-havens of the rich to those controlling the world.”(37) Which was inevitable given the passage of enough time, as the typical human's ability to forgo personal rewards from generous patrons whilst maintaining an unswerving commitment to improving the lot of others is somewhat stunted, and institutions like the UN are made up of humans. The absence of checks and balances simply enabled “the move from prioritizing the Cambodian mother to fawning upon those of wealth or name.”(38)

“The UN was set up to be a servant of “The Peoples.” It has grown, perhaps inevitably, to be a self-serving club working with a chosen few, and is gradually becoming self-entitled and detached. It is now functioning with a small elite more reminiscent of the fascist centralized systems it was supposed to be a bulwark against, rather than an organ run by and for and at the will of all of us. It is a path human institutions inevitably take when they forget the reason for their very existence.”(39)

Some commentators are of the view that UN functionaries may have good intentions but are merely out-of-touch or incompetent. I suppose a few may possess that disposition, but there is a limit to how much slack we can give people who claim that the three existential threats facing humanity are the climate crisis, international conflicts and pandemics. Especially when one doesn't exist and the other two can be (and have been) summoned at will. They, unelected bureaucrats, then believe that they are entitled to set out their strategic programme and “propose global solutions”.(40) The entire loop, from engineering crises to providing solutions, has a hermetically sealed feel to it and they would have to be either complicit or wilfully blind to play the roles that they do.

So, we can expect the sudden appearance of other multiplying crises that “far exceed the capacity of any single State alone,”(41) which therefore cry out for global governance. That may well include another pandemic, a consequential war (more on that a little later) or weather events that are manipulated for maximum effect. The latter tactic, which is known to be possible (see Helene and Milton), may be utilised extensively as it's a Big Lie phenom; by which I mean that the idea that governments could create and guide hurricanes and other extreme weather events is so far out there that even those dissidents who possess the receipts are reluctant to publish them. They no doubt fear the public tarring and feathering that would follow.

Big Lies are, therefore, very effective and the temptation may be to deploy a number of natural disasters in support of both a Cloward-Piven strategy and to also bolster the fictitious climate narrative. I note this because there has already been another once-in-a-lifetime event, a 'bomb cyclone' (combined with a Category 5 'atmospheric river') in the US, this time affecting the west coast, with winds on a par with a Category 4 hurricane. Strange, isn't it? Maui, Helene, Milton and now this. Is it only the US that suffers extreme weather events?

Figure 1

Mostly, it seems, with the possible exception of Spain in late October, when Valencia got dumped with a year's worth of rain in 8 hours, without there being an actual storm to go with the deluge; just “towns and cities filling up with water as you'd fill a bathtub.”(42) There was some hail, though calling it hail is a bit like calling a tsunami an unusually high tide. This is what it did to car windows.

Figure 2

The three global threats identified by the UN are the vehicles for much of the digital doozies that the globalists are desperate to deploy and the justification for policies that will target energy and food supply. Without the climate change hoax, there is no reason to cull livestock so that methane emissions might be ameliorated. Nor is there a need to ramp up the cost of fertiliser. 'Renewable' (aka unreliable, expensive and unnecessary) energy is no longer the panacea to cure all our climate ills, EVs can be consigned to the slag heap of history, bugs can go back to their day job rather than being part of our staple diet, Bill Gates can shove his fake meat where the sun don't shine, any move towards a personal carbon score is deep-sixed and the word 'sustainable' can be spat out with the contempt it deserves – not because it's a bad concept in and of itself, but because of the nefarious uses to which it's been put.

Without contrived pandemics there will be no attempt at mandating so-called 'vaccines', no compulsory vaccine passport that will morph into a digital ID in short order, no lock-downs and wholesale trampling of fundamental personal rights. Without designer conflicts there will no opportunity to force populations to conform to governmental diktats or face persecution for sedition or treason, there'll be less justification to police speech (not that genuine justification seems to be much of an issue) and the martial law bogeyman is banished. Above all, an absence of “complex global shocks” removes the alleged need for global governance.

So, we have a reasonable idea of the globalists' desired direction of travel. John Kerry, ex-'climate envoy' for Biden, dutifully followed the script last week when he stated that “we're on the brink of needing to declare a climate emergency....and we need to get people to behave as if this is really a major transitional challenge to the whole planet...”,(43) which might signal an upcoming attempt to railroad Trump before he can take office by getting the UN to do the necessary and daring Trump to ignore it. It isn't as if they haven't floated 'climate lock-downs' before – they tried to piggyback them onto the Covid version in 2020 and the language used then is still all too familiar:

“Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently. Many think of the climate crisis as distinct from the health and economic crises caused by the pandemic. But the three crises – and their solutions – are interconnected …”(44)

Just to put the climate change debate to bed for now; there is no evidence of a causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. Neither is there any evidence that human industry has any effect on the climate. There is no 'climate cliff' and the 'runaway global warming' trope is complete nonsense. We are living through an interglacial; it's cold, not warm. Our glorious leaders know all this. Nothing that they wish to impose upon us has anything to do with a genuine concern for humanity's wellbeing. The 'crisis' is simply a blunt instrument with which to beat us into servitude, because the sociopaths currently in command cannot countenance a constellation of nation states doing their own thing. It really isn't any more complicated than that:

“We are all being acculturated to believe that the nation-state is nothing but an anachronism that needs to be supplanted. Keep in mind that this necessarily means treating democracy and freedom as anachronisms too. In practice, the only means by which average people can restrain tyranny and despotism is through voting at the national level...The way politics is structured in the world today, we are all necessarily disenfranchised in a world governed by global institutions. And that is precisely the point: to achieve universal disenfranchisement of average people so that the elites can have a free hand in regulating the planet as they see fit.”(45)

Figure 3

Figure 4

Nonetheless, the storm is gathering apace. The second pile of doo-doo that the Democrats and their fellow travellers in much of NATO seem determined to leave on the living room carpet in the next six weeks or so is the long-anticipated expansion of the Russia-Ukraine War. As previously noted, the decision to 'assist the Ukrainians' in bombing Russia (I suspect Zelensky is still playing the role that's been assigned to him, rather than actually being the instigator) is, effectively, an act of war by the United States – one that cannot possibly make one iota of difference to the outcome of the conflict, particularly as the Ukrainian conscripts are voting with their feet:

“Facing every imaginable shortage, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired and bereft, have walked away from combat and front-line positions to slide into anonymity, according to soldiers, lawyers and Ukrainian officials. Entire units have abandoned their posts, leaving defensive lines vulnerable and accelerating territorial losses, according to military commanders and soldiers.” (46)

Putin knows all this and gave Biden fair warning. Prior to the election, the skinny was that the Pentagon had told Biden not to make promises that they were not prepared to honour. It seems as though Trump's victory – and, possibly, the likelihood of swingeing terminations and criminal investigations of the top brass – has prompted a rethink. Perhaps they've decided that a war is needed, the better to distract. What is near certain is that if one of two potential protagonists wants to fight and the other doesn't, the outcome will be a fight, not inaction. There will come a point when Putin's restraint must evaporate if he wants to stay in his job, as his domestic rivals aren't peaceniks; they're hawks who already think that he has been too accommodating of NATO's reckless adventurism. The question is whether that point will be reached before January 20^th.

As is now the norm, US officials whisper sweet nothings to their stenographers in the legacy media, insinuating that they believe that Putin is bluffing about his red lines. The so-called journalists simply regurgitate their briefings, never exploring the possibility that Blinken, Sullivan et al are lying so that they might set up the Incompetence Defence in advance and that, in truth, they know exactly what response they are likely to get.

The Russians have initially responded by using their hypersonic missiles in battle for the first time, missiles that are capable of carrying a nuclear payload (NATO has no way of telling apart the missiles that might have such a payload and those that might not) and which the West has no defence against. Russia is also apparently in the process of closing her borders and battening down the hatches in preparation for a wider war.(47)

Finland, Norway and Sweden are flapping and circulating emergency preparedness pamphlets, Le Petit Roi and Sir Keir Something are openly having 'classified' discussions about sending troops to Ukraine (48) and the chair of NATO's military committee has taken to issuing daily pronouncements, first enjoining “businesses to be prepared for a wartime scenario” (49) and then publicly stating that “it is more competent not to wait, but to hit launchers in Russia in case Russia attacks us. A combination of precision strikes is needed that will disable the systems that are used to attack us, and we must strike first,”(50) thus demonstrating – once again – that escalation is the desired end result.

The only reason that any NATO country will be attacked by Russia would be by virtue of its direct involvement in bombing Russia itself. So far, NATO members have gotten away with supplying money and materiel to Zelensky to be used to kill Russians and prop up a regime that is now a dictatorship, given the fact that Zelensky's term has expired. Putin hasn't intercepted any military equipment before it has reached Ukrainian soil, but that may change if the gloves come off. We might also usefully remember that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and that the entire support act is, therefore, off-the-books.

There is one further pressure-point that Biden's string-pullers might exploit. Belarus has long been a target of the regime-change arm of the US intelligence community, as it's close ally of Russia. Trump attempted to reset America's relationship with Lukashenko in 2019/2020 after decades of the usual sanctimonious tripe and sanctions that were repeatedly deployed in a failed attempt at forcing changes in domestic policy. The Deep State was, once again, singularly unimpressed with a president who had the gall to run his own foreign policy and undermined him with an attempted colour revolution in 2020 in the wake of the Belarusian president's re-election.(51)

They failed – the play-book is becoming a little tattered latterly, as the same tactics are deployed time and again. Nonetheless, Trump's initiative foundered as his State Department – led by ex-CIA Director Mike Pompeo – turned the screws, forcing the Belarussians deeper into Putin's embrace. It was Russia, Russia, Russia 2.0 and there was to be no rapprochement with any entity that might function as a bridge between East and West.

There were more provocations in 2022, when “a network of railway workers, hackers and dissident security forces went into action to disable or disrupt railway links connecting Russia to Ukraine through Belarus, wreaking havoc on Russian supply lines”(52) and both Poland and Ukraine (at America's behest) have form for meddling in the recent past. The latest reports concern sleeper-cells within Belarus and the potential for foreign mercenaries to infiltrate from Ukraine and then attempt to seize the capital, Minsk.

It isn't as if the West's proxy hasn't already demonstrated a taste for such operations in the Kursk area. The Blob might consider such an operation to increase their leverage come the inevitable peace talks that Trump will instigate. The new NATO supremo, the execrable Mark Rutte – latterly a fake Dutch 'conservative' eventually booted from office – is busy seeding very unsubtle clues that something offensive is in the works:

"We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of more strength than they are at the moment, so that a deal can be struck that is not favourable to the Russians.”(53)

At present, that is magical thinking. But, because these people cannot conceive of a world in which Putin successfully resists their aggression and, in the process, demonstrates that they are not the Masters of the Universe that they perceive themselves to be, there is currently talk of further insanity. This time, Russia claims that NATO is planning an intervention in Ukraine (once again, to further emphasise the point, Ukraine is not a member state) with a force of 100,000 'peacekeepers', presumably to freeze the conflict, who will “function as tripwires for deterring a Russian attack that could spark World War II.”(54) The plan is to then rebuild Ukraine's military, so that Zelensky – or whoever is inserted to succeed him – can remain a threat on Russia's border.

If true, and it sounds a lot like a plan that might “make sure that Ukraine is in a position of more strength”, it would cross perhaps the broadest of Putin's red lines. He knows that NATO troops have been on the ground in Ukraine for many months, either in official capacities or as alleged soldiers of fortune, but he's been able to gloss over it because he has deemed it more advantageous to avoid rising to the bait, but if the Poles, the Romanians, the Germans and the Brits quarter the rump that remains unoccupied by the Russians, and continue to set up training centres, then Putin's requirement of a neutral Ukraine will simply be trampled over.

Having said that, the Polish leadership are currently cosplaying at Ukro-scepticism, as it's politically expedient with a presidential election next year and may not want to ruin the illusion.(55) It'll probably have to be done within the next three weeks, because a populist party looks set to win the election in Romania and they have already stated that they want no part of the war. Hence, the globalists are doing their utmost to tamper with the vote and crowbar their favoured candidate into the two-party run-off, which they will then attempt to manipulate or, if all else fails, run the play-book one more time post-election.(56)

But if Russia is convinced that war with NATO is inevitable, there will be no reciprocal attempt at an invasion of Europe. Putin has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in that, not that you'd know that if you are a consumer of mainstream news. Russian state media helpfully spelled out what to expect instead by publishing a segment showing the flight times of their Oreshnik hypersonic ICBMs to various US targets in the Middle East and on American territory. At 200 kilometres a minute and a range of 5,500km, it transpires that even North Dakota – 4,900km away – could be reached in only 24 minutes.(57)

That's a speed of Mach 10+ and, although the US says otherwise, it is highly likely that their fastest interceptor can only reach Mach 5.5.(58) Then there's always the nuclear option, which is another cluster if you're an American (and the rest of us), depending on our place in the queue:

“Their strategic nuclear arsenal is far superior to our own, their anti-missile systems are far superior to our own, and the subs that they would use to deliver a devastating first strike are so quiet that we cannot even track them effectively.”(59)

As is frequently the case, we are required to speculate on just how in touch with reality our leaders truly are. As I have previously noted (see Doing Their Own Legs), NATO's nuclear readiness is almost certainly negligible and the only testing that has been done in recent years has gone badly. So badly that it appears that a decision to test no more has been taken, as more failures would simply have the opposite of the deterrent effect.

“Not a single ICBM with a live warhead has ever been tested. The ICBM is, substantially, a hoax. Scientifically unproven, a semi-imaginary technology....Warheads have been tested and ICBMs with warheads removed have been tested but never together...”(60)

And it's not as though we can call on superior battlefield weapons or vast quantities of ammunition. We've given most of the latter to Zelensky, a good quantity of which is likely to be found in the Peshawar markets, and the Russians have bested our tanks and artillery systems. All we really have left is bluff and a bunch of ageing nukes that may or may not launch as required. The Americans were previously able to make mischief in Europe without fearing the non-nuclear consequences, but that equation has now been decisively altered. Russia's military capability far exceeds that of NATO, Ukraine is right on their doorstep and the proxy war has tuned the Russians up nicely, whereas the last extended conventional war with a near-peer power that the Americans undertook was in Korea, seventy years ago. And with the US as the only alpha in the alliance, fighting such a war in Ukraine would be a logistical nightmare.

One assumes that the Pentagon knows this. Whether sock-puppet Biden does is anyone's guess, but whoever it is that is calling the shots is working to a tight schedule. Trump says he will find a way to call a halt to the conflict, which would inevitably entail the loss of all the resources in the Donbass (80% of all Ukraine's oil and gas fields, four major ports, all refineries and large oil depots, plus the most fertile agricultural land in Europe),(61) not to mention those of Russia herself as she will be undefeated. Zelensky has now, belatedly, accepted that he will have to cede territory to the Russians if he wants to negotiate an end to the war, albeit with a caveat that Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO – aka one of the reasons the war started.

A project that has been over thirty years in the making would then shudder to a humiliating halt. It's going to anyway, whatever the Deep State does – it's more a question of how much stuff they're going to smash on their way to the mat. We are left to hope that Putin can get through to the end of January without feeling compelled to remove any doubt that we are already, effectively, at war. If that can be achieved, we can all continue to pretend that nothing ever really happened.

This is the Trump effect; the Deep State's sudden urge to secure the best possible outcomes to its foreign entanglements by 20^th January when it knows that all bets will be off. Something similar has also kicked off in Syria, where armed jihadis have suddenly launched an offensive against the government and are making significant gains. One might think that al-Qaeda splinter groups are supposed to be the enemy in the 'War on Terror' and that their victories are not our victories and one would be right – except they're not the enemy when they're useful.

In this case, Obama-era policy was to take down al-Assad and the point man was the late John McCain, seen here meeting the 'armed opposition' in Syria. In the first picture, the man in the doorway is Mohammad Nour, a spokesperson for the al-Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria). In the second, he is talking with Abu Du'a (first on the left), better known to the world as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and first caliph of ISIS and, at that point, on the most wanted terrorism list of the US for the past 18 months (bottom left).(62)

Figure 5

Figure 6

But, we shouldn't get the impression that Obama and McCain were duping their respective parties with these 'secret' activities. Congress was fully aware that the US was arming these 'moderate' rebels, because they approved the funding – in secret, naturally.(63) And in contravention of two UN Resolutions to which the US was already signed up.(64) So the US, allegedly the leader of the global war on terror, passed a 2014 law that financed the two organisations (under Al Qaeda) most responsible for it – the al-Nusra Front and ISIS - and the press almost completely ignored the contradiction.

It's probable that Turkey's Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting – he has his own reasons for destabilising the Syrian regime - but the objectives of the 'rebels' mirror those that the US has pursued for over a decade. Why now? Well, Trump had no interest in Syria and wanted to pull out completely, so time is short. Plus, Russia is al-Assad's principle ally and anything that ties up Russian resources in Syria – rather than having them available in Ukraine – is much to be desired.

However, it's unlikely that the outcome of these skirmishes will significantly affect any of us. So, what other differences can Trump make that will? Well, the US blob – including the private citizen string-pullers – is very much in the driving seat on much of their agenda and 47's views on most of that platform are entirely antithetical. He doesn't believe in the climate hoax – as evidenced by his signature pronouncement “Drill, baby, drill”-(65) and he has nominated or appointed individuals who will enable his agenda. There will be an immediate cessation of the Biden regime's climate policies:

“Starting on Day 1, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refiners, new power plants, new reactors and we ill slash red tape....I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months... To further defeat inflation, my plan will terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam.”(66)

He will surely take the US out of the Paris Climate Accords once again, as he will no doubt immediately be in breach of them. The renewable energy sector, heavily subsidised, will likely be decimated as Trump will end the construction of wind farms on Day One. He will rapidly increase oil, natural gas and coal production by allowing federal lands to be mined and he will enable the nuclear industry.(67) The resultant increase in global supply should reduce prices, unless OPEC and others play silly buggers by reducing their own supply. I imagine Trump will disabuse them of any such notion should they express it.

But while these policies would clearly benefit Americans and would constitute an implicit rejection of the climate change narrative, how would they affect others? And how could the UN and every other body that is all-in on the scam simply sit back and let Trump allegedly ruin the future for all of us? So far, they haven't engaged in the debate. They haven't attempted to make their case and there has been little in the way of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The pearl clutching, such as it is, has accompanied an excoriation of the tens of millions of white, heterosexual, homophobic and racist rednecks who voted him back into office. As such, the progressives haven't yet got around to supergluing themselves to the White House fence to bemoan the soon-to-be boiling oceans.

I don't think that the failure to engage on the climate change issue will be reversed. I've no doubt that the eco-incels will make themselves heard at some point, but the last thing Gutteres and his ilk would welcome is a debate on the evidence – or lack thereof. My take is that, if they start running their mouths off claiming that Trump is a sociopath bent on taking us all out with a CO2 overdose, they might actually be challenged to prove it. That's not what they do. They much prefer to beat us over the head with unsubstantiated claims and then destroy whoever has the temerity to answer back.

And, in truth, it's really the only option they have. That or admit that they've been lying to us for decades, which clearly isn't an option at all. So I imagine that they will try to manufacture evidence, probably by continuing to mess with the weather, engineering droughts, setting wild fires and creating more extreme weather events which they can then claim to be the result of anthropogenic climate change. They'll also maintain their standard-issue lies trumpeting 'the hottest year on record' and what data they do produce will be the product of deliberately faulty research.

The Met Office in the UK will continue to mislead us at every opportunity by using temperature data that is deliberately corrupted by the urban heat island effect; 77.9% of their sites have been rated junk with temperature uncertainties of between 2°C and 5°C,(68) like this one, at an airport. When they need to boost their numbers further, they simply make stuff up:

“Following a number of Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office and diligent field work visiting individuals stations, Sanders has discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites supplying temperature averages do not exist.”(69)

Figure 7

The UN, in particular, wants to continue to mislead as to the state of the coral at the Great Barrier Reef which, inconveniently, is now more prolific than ever.

Figure 8

Al Gore's polar bears are also doing just fine – there are three times as many in the US as there were in the 1960s and they are now carrying more fat into the winter months.(70)(71) Further, temperatures in Greenland have been falling for twenty years and the sea ice around Antarctica, on the other pole, has slowly increased since the start of continuous satellite measurements in 1979.(72) Schwab, the pantomime villain over at the WEF, has a different take on matters – he reckons the entire Greenland ice sheet will collapse within a few months.(73)

But while you can get away with lies like this if you are in command of the entire media landscape, you get ratioed into oblivion when you can't control X and those who challenge your falsehoods are no longer being flagged or shadow-banned. The Leftists, as is their wont, will take their ball and head over to their Bluesky echo-chamber, where they can inundate the moderators with demands for censorship of any view that doesn't synch entirely with their own and we can bid them all good riddance.(74)(75)

Figure 9

When you start reading information such as this in the mainstream, then you'll know that the jig will shortly be up, globally. However, Net Zero is wholly reliant on the lies that they tell us instead and that mission is, in turn, critical to their ambitions. It may very well be that different blocs will be effectively siloed. The UK, led by politicians (of both main parties) who are fanatically committed to the project, is not going to reverse course anytime soon no matter what Trump does. Neither will the EU, in all probability, as it's another entity intent on economic hari-kari.

The recent populist wave that has swept the continent and made the Right giddy with excitement has been largely contained so far. The 'Anywhere's' have always had a plan for the 'Somewhere's; it's known as le cordon sanitaire and it has several major components. Firstly, foster an electoral system that caters to special interest or single-issue parties, thus fudging the Left-Right dynamic. Secondly, ensure that socialist parties misrepresent themselves as Centrist or Centre Right.

Thirdly, label every party that is genuinely conservative as Far Right and denigrate them at every opportunity. Fourthly, and in extremis, if they still manage to attract a sizeable following – perhaps, even, the most sizeable following – refuse to have anything to do with them and cobble together a coalition of the willing, instead. Or, if there is no other option, hold the populists' feet to the fire by refusing to form a government that might actually reflect the will of the electorate.

Thus, Wilders in the Netherlands has been nobbled, despite his PVV being the most popular party, and the ex-head spook is Prime Minister instead. The coalition government is an accident waiting to happen, but the establishment still has its hand on the tiller. Macron pulled a fast one by allying with the Far Left before the second-round and successfully keeping Marine Le Pen from power – perhaps a repeat of 2022's shenanigans (which was itself a carbon copy of the 2017 election, when 4.2 million Le Pen ballots were damaged or destroyed before being dispatched to voters, an outcome which Macron entirely avoided) was deemed to be a little too obvious.

Figure 10

The French establishment is now thrashing around, attempting to convict Le Pen of campaign finance violations between 2009-2016, despite the fact that the law she is alleged to have broken wasn't created until 2016.(76) The kicker is that, when she is inevitably convicted, she will be barred from running for president again in 2027. However, given that Macron's government is now on the brink of collapse, she may get another shot well before then.

The hapless Scholz in Germany is another “globalist puppet” - Le Pen's assessment of Macron – attempting to show that King Canute got it wrong. When, after several years of dysfunction and plummeting approval ratings (18%, currently, but 14% in this year's European elections)(77) his infamous 'traffic light coalition' finally disintegrated, he was obliged to call a snap election for February 23^rd, 2025.(78) Before then, however, the German establishment is going to try and ban the AfD, the second most popular party in Germany, on the grounds that it is a “confirmed threat” to the constitution, a designation that the security services are almost certain to make at some point soon.(79)

The real reason is that the party is so popular that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the globalists to keep the cordon intact. Additionally, it appears their the AfD's manifesto will go-for-broke; exit from the EU, a new currency, very limited access to abortion (the horror), men staying men rather than pretending to be women, a ban on puberty blockers for adolescents, support for crypto and the retention of cash. In other words, the whole shebang apart from 'climate change', but they'll be able chart their own course on that issue too, if they are sans EU. All the policies that conservative invertebrates in other countries don't have the stones to propose. They even want to trade with Russia. If the draft survives largely unmolested, it'll represent the first notable act of non-pretending in the political sphere since Trump's ouster.(80)

The Spanish election of 2023 was another marred by allegations of voter fraud, which enabled the Far Left to form a government despite the fact that the Right won the most votes. In Portugal, the alleged Centre-Right PSD formed a minority government, even though an alliance with Chega – allegedly Far-Right, but actually mainstream conservative – would have resulted in an administration with a comfortable majority. In Poland, once again, parties allegedly of the Right got the most votes, but the Left formed a government because one of the main Centre-Right party preferred to ally with Donald Tusk, an ex-EU mandarin.

The Belgian globalists also follow the template, with the two genuinely Right-Wing parties routinely overlooked, despite winning the biggest share of the vote in the past two federal elections. Predictably, the voting public expressed their displeasure the next time they were given the opportunity – the European elections – and the governing coalition received a shoeing, in the manner of Macron's and Scholz's and the Prime Minister had no option but to resign.

It won't make any real difference – another rag-tag coalition of ideological opposites will limp on until the people finally get the message and vote in sufficient numbers so as to breach the cordon. This is what happens in Hungary and, more recently, in Georgia. The globalists in the EU and the US are borderline apoplectic, but they haven't managed to foment the regime change they so desperately seek.

It's not for the lack of trying as, in time-honoured stylee, Tbilisi is set ablaze in protest at a 'stolen election' that looked like this.

Figure 11

But the globalist opposition simply faked some exit polls, relied upon 'foreign election observers to suggest that there were 'vote violations' and established their flimsy pretext. Next, have a meet-up outside parliament with a rent-a-mob and Bob's your uncle. This is the fourth recent attempt to overthrow the properly elected government and it's utterly blatant now, but the double-downers don't care about that and time is of the essence. USAID's Samantha Power has been racking up the frequent flyer miles, dropping in on a regular basis to encourage the troops.(81)

All in all, the Green ideology/globalist/Leftist agenda is becoming visibly unpopular in Europe, but that has been the case for several election cycles and they have always found a way to maintain their grip. I'm not convinced that Trump's coming liberalisation of America's energy potential will have much of an effect in Net Zero Europe:

“Either the corrupt, anti-democratic EU political elites continue to ignore the material interests of half a billion people, or they take steps towards shattering the consensus that has brought them to this point. With public discontent growing, threatening their cosy politics, neither option will be comfortable. Don’t expect an end to Net Zero just yet.”(82)

Indeed. But, as we know to our cost, listening to the peons isn't part of the deal. The instinct is always to corral ever more control and so the EU is attempting one more power grab amongst many. This time Ursula von der Leyen wants to dismantle the Union's regional policy – the disbursement to the regions' operating programmes – which currently funds 530 operating programmes - and instead give the funds to the governments of the member states instead. The money is currently largely managed by many rural areas, which tend to lean more conservative and she's not at all keen on that dynamic. It's easy to see what's coming next, because it's already happened to Orbán's Hungary, albeit with a different set of funds:

“Let’s imagine a situation where Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) returns to power and does not transfer money to voivodeships or cities governed by PO. However, in such a scenario, Brussels could turn around and cut funding to Poland if it disagrees with PiS’ policies. In the event that a left-liberal government carries out such actions, it could simply look the other way and allow funds to continue to flow.”(83)

It's clear that, at present, the EU supertanker, accompanied by the SS Starmer is not for turning. By contrast, the giants of the Global South and BRICS – increasingly one and the same – are not constrained by Net Zero. It's a different story for the minnows, but perhaps not in the way you might imagine. Whilst it has been shown that 130 Global South countries found that their greenhouse gas emissions were linked to the IMF's loaning policies and 140 of them signed up to Net Zero by 2050,(84)(85) emissions actually increased in the years after receiving the dosh, because they had to increase their exports – thus growing and making more stuff – due to the coercive lending conditions.

It doesn't have to be that way, as more flexible lending conditions don't prompt the same outcomes,(86) but the IMF (the UN's baby) doesn't actually care about climate change. It cares about making money and seizing assets when the inevitable defaults occur. Countries are “trapped in a vicious cycle which keeps them indebted”,(87) which is exactly how the Western globalists like it. That particular Gordian Knot seems likely to be permanently tangled as long as the UN retains its ability to wreak havoc.

We should also remember that the Pandemic Treaty is still out, lurking in the depths, although without US sponsorship it may very well be a dead letter. There is no way that Trump is going to pursue that particular instrument of control. He made it crystal clear when he addressed the UN General Assembly in 2018:

“Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth. That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination....We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism. Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from new forms of coercion and domination.”(88)

That doesn't sound like a man who will have any truck with a Pandemic Treaty that guts national sovereignty. The IHR amendments were only adopted at the 11^th hour because Biden's boy bullied them through, but they won't yet be in force when Trump resumes his presidency. Biden tried to Trump-proof both agreements, but ran out of time.(89) When Trump rejects the amendments and refuses to provide the impetus for the treaty, it will be a big win for the American people and a better-than-otherwise-anticipated result for the rest of us. Our feckless leaders can allow the amendments to take effect, but the treaty may no longer remain on the menu.

It will be interesting to see what the new administration does with the UN, because it will be on a collision course with the organisation on any number of issues. It's the UN's IPCC that is the entity which bears most responsibility for perpetuating the climate scam, Agenda 21 – the least talked-about yet most insidious programme undermining our quality of living – is also the UN's baby, the Paris Climate Accords ditto, it's the UN's WTO that will have a fit of the vapours when Trump imposes trade tariffs again, it's the UN's IMF that is promoting CBDCs under the guise of 'promoting financial inclusion' and it's the ICC (a close partner of the UN) that will be hit with severe sanctions due to Trump's belief that the court is rabidly anti-Israel. Trump's pick for National Security Advisor had this to say:

“The ICC has no credibility...Israel has lawfully defended its people from genocidal terrorists. You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & Un come January.”(90)

Given all of the above, one wonders why the US under Trump would want to remain a member. He may be having similar thoughts. He withdrew from the Human Rights Council, the Paris Accords and the WHO last time around and he refused to participate in the Global Compact on Migration, yet another attempt at a UN power-grab. If he really throws the shackles off – something that seems to be a distinct possibility – he will simply leave the UN. While in 2018, he was “committed to making the United Nations more effective and accountable” as it had “unlimited potential”, he also said that he believed in “self-government” and that “there are those people who think it's an underperformer and will never perform”(91) and that

“...Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.”(92)

Without US funding, the UN's future would be hugely uncertain. In 2022, Biden funnelled more than $18 billion dollars into the organisation's coffers,(93) a third of its total funding. While Trump's efforts to cut contributions in his first administration were blunted by Congress, he's unlikely to be denied this time. And when not inclined to speak diplomatically – the 'mean tweets' version of 45 and 47 – he has been explicit:

"Which brings me to my next point, the utter weakness and incompetence of the United Nations. The United Nations is not a friend of democracy, it's not a friend to freedom, it's not a friend even to the United States of America where, as you know, it has its home.”(94)

If he nobbles the UN, we will all be the beneficiaries. The scaffolding that will be used to build our digital cage will be compromised. Gates' push for a global digital ID is advanced via the UN's ID2020 programme,(95) although there are other candidates – particularly within the EU, which has spent billions merging as many databases as possible in preparation for a roll-out.(96) It may be that the silo effect is again in play, whereby different blocs proceed at their own pace, as it's not clear to me how Trump's America First strategy will necessarily halt the depredations of other nations.

Trump will also have to bat off another Trojan Horse that the Deep State is attempting to introduce - Identity Authorisation Networks (IANs). The narrative is as follows:

“IANs combine digital credentials, biometric data and comprehensive fraud risk signals to “secure” transactions. They enable organisations to confirm the authenticity of users’ real-world identities; grant or restrict access to resources, networks and data based on predefined permissions and policies; and, track user behaviour and transactions, providing a comprehensive audit trail for compliance and security purposes.”(97)

Sounds sensible enough, doesn't it? Except by now we should be aware that nothing that is being proposed around digital IDs (and much else besides) is for our benefit, so we simply need to dig a little and all will be revealed. The idea is that the government or a bank issues the ID and it will be used to verify a person's identity across the IAN 'network'. And what does this network look like? I suspect you already know the answer to that question, but for the avoidance of doubt, here it is.

Figure 12

So, every digital system we might avail ourselves of. And the problem with that? All it would take is one faceless individual – or, better yet, wholly unaccountable AI – to flag your ID as suspected of being 'linked to fraud' and your life will get shut down. And we know exactly how quickly mission creep will feature, when the government doesn't like something you said on social media, or you're travelling too much because 'climate change', or you're using crypto and the government is unimpressed (not to mention the fact that the entire point of crypto – privacy and decentralisation – will automatically be negated if the government is checking every transaction).

And they will be checking every transaction or, as the authors of a recent report like to say, there will be an “ongoing review of transactions and events for fraud and compliance”.(98) Compliance with what? With whatever governments decide, presumably. It's the social credit score on steroids and you can bet your bottom dollar that it's going to be heading our way.

It does seem to me that a bank account can already be frozen in the here and now – the scheme is not reliant on a digital currency. And with the second coming of Trump, the CBDC may have difficulty hatching. Orange Man Bad is a big fan of cryptocurrencies and the American establishment's war on crypto – a vicious campaign of ruination and widespread de-banking -(99)(100)(101) will undoubtedly come to an end. It seems he's even going to appoint a 'Crypto Czar' to support the industry.(102)

And if the globalists can't eliminate crypto, it is difficult to see how a CBDC can succeed, as there will be an alternative payment system in existence that will allow citizens to evade the state's control of their lives. As the US dollar is the world's reserve currency and as Trump is clearly determined that it should remain so,(103) it is not easy to see how the cell door can be slammed shut on us.

I suppose it's possible that at least some of our finances can be controlled, but purchasing a decent amount of crypto prior to the imposition of a central bank currency would provide a safety valve and frustrate any attempt at total dominion over us – provided the IAN all-in-one control mechanism isn't adopted. Trump is not in the slightest bit interested in controlling Americans' lives and, if crypto survives, the ripples will spread far from the nation's shores.

I wouldn't expect the EU or the UK to give up trying, mind. The fever hasn't yet broken in those two jurisdictions and the Leftist know-it-alls have not been given a reason to back off. The need to kowtow to the United States might put a crimp in their best-laid plans, but their defeat is not yet inevitable, even if it feels as though that possibility now exists. The UK and Germany, notably, are sprinting towards the abyss although, while Starmer has another four plus years of mayhem available to him before he is electorally defenestrated, Scholz only has until February before his destiny is confirmed. But the German establishment is showing no indication that they possess a scintilla of self-awareness, so I wouldn't expect an outcome that's in line with the public vote.

But Trump's win still feels like a seismic event. In America, at least, there is a gathering momentum, a sense that the corrosive progressive ideologies are in retreat and that normality is belatedly making a comeback. The more time that passes, the more tricky it will be to stuff the genie back in the bottle. It's still difficult to work out why he was allowed to win whilst, down ballot, the Left stole election after election, both in the Senate and in the House. Perhaps there is a hint of a fallback mid-term strategy as the incumbent usually loses seats and it's now tight in both houses. However, if they could produce the ballots to win close congressional races in the 'swing states' (and, notoriously, in California), then they could have stolen the presidential election, too.

But they didn't. Perhaps they thought that they could hunker down, conduct a guerilla campaign of resistance and sabotage for a couple of years, aided and abetted by the neocons and establishment RINOs, and then run the same plays in the mid-terms in 2026 that they've been running every two years since 2008 – at the very latest. If so, they have almost certainly miscalculated badly, as Trump has vowed to assemble investigative teams to examine the stolen election of 2020 and if they do their job, rather than playing out the clock and covering up, the Democrats will be out of office for a generation.(104)

Perhaps, as Marc Andreessen – a billionaire investor – revealed on Rogan's podcast, one set of billionaires decided that another set of billionaires had gone too far and wanted to correct course.(105) Musk, Ellison, Thiel and others have thrown their lot in with Trump, while Bezos and Zuckerberg have hedged their bets and now find themselves trying to ingratiate themselves after the event. The Facebook founder dined with Trump in late November and was at pains to make it known that “he wants to support the national renewal of America under Trump's leadership”.(106) That would be same Trump that he banned from his social media platform.

Bezos hasn't yet made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, but he took one for the team by refusing to let his Washington Post endorse Harris (prompting a now-familiar meltdown from Leftists and a haemorrhaging subscription base) and then praised Trump's “extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory”.(107) So, it seems possible that one set of string-pullers have told another set that there needs to be a revamp. It's possible, I guess, even though it is the intelligence community that's probably the biggest shot-caller in the house and will be one of the most prominent casualties if Trump follows through and burns it down. It's still very difficult to see why they would sit on their hands and accept their fate.

What impact the American election has on the rest of us may well depend upon whether the other silos form the view that they can ride out the storm, secure in the knowledge that normal service will be resumed in either 2026 or 2028. But if Trump gets to the bottom of the massive election fraud machine run by the Left, and it becomes apparent that the tectonic plates have shifted permanently and that Vance or DeSantis are a shoo-in next time around, the contagion may spread to other shores. There's no doubt that 45's victory is good for morale, whatever one thinks of the man, as it will – at the very least – slow the totalitarian juggernaut.

Without US leadership or compliance, and with Trump's known hostility towards the climate change nonsense and the UN's New World Order delusions, the imposition of the Great Reset will be significantly more difficult across the West. Indeed, the biggest gift he could give the world would be to call out Net Zero officially and shunt the Overton Window far enough that it becomes acceptable to rubbish the scam. That would really put the mockers on Schwab's pet project.

However, as can be seen with the stealth promotion of IANs, the battle is far from over. The war on food is still full on, likewise the assault on our freedoms and it seems obvious that the Left (and its shock troops) is keeping its powder dry, for some reason. And this lame-duck period in Biden's presidency is tailor-made for the creation of chaos and harm that the next incumbent will be obliged to deal with. Trump is trying to ensure that that's him by holing up in his home in Florida, which goes some way towards minimising the odds of assassination.

If the billionaires have staged their own coup, then 47's win might set in motion the same unravelling that Boris' persecution for Partygate – and his subsequent abandonment of pandemic measures, in a desperate attempt to curry favour with the electorate – did. Once the British domino fell, it was only a matter of time before they all did. We'll know more once we can be certain of whether Trump's coterie of the rich are really the big dogs or whether they have been played. At the moment, given the ass-kissing by some of the vanquished, it seems that they may be the real deal and the progressives are on the back foot. On balance, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but time will tell. We can, at least, hope but I won't believe until I can look at a sky that isn't consistently cross-hatched. Then we'll be getting somewhere.

Citations

(1)https://chroniclesmagazine.org/online-feature/all-the-presidents-neocons/

(2) https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/china-and-india-are-building-coal-generating-capacity-for-energy-security/

(3) https://brownstone.org/articles/the-neo-liberal-consensus-is-coming-apart/

(4) https://off-guardian.org/2024/09/25/a-globalism-of-ideas-inside-the-uns-pact-for-the-future/

(5-7) Ditto

(8) https://x.com/atensnut/status/1860812548569735569?ref_src=twsrc

(9)https://x.com/CatchUpFeed/status/1861087405622604276?ref_src=twsrc

(10) https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736

(11) https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/06/13/u-n-proposes-global-digital-compact-to-stop-online-hate/

(12) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/care-worker-who-streamed-riot-aftermath-jailed/ar-AA1tX3Ip

(13) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/uk-non-crime-hate-incidents-should-be-abolished-report-says