Holocaust Deniers. Hero’s or villains.
Ursula Haverbeck (born November 8, 1928, died November 20, 2024) recently passed away at the age of ninety-six. She became well-known, or rather infamous, in Germany for her willingness to question the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust, which states that six million people perished. Throughout her life, she frequently clashed with German authorities over charges of ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘incitement to hatred,’ offences that usually lead to heavy fines or incarceration. Her purported crime was her belief that Auschwitz functioned as a labour camp rather than a death camp. In a speech delivered in 2016 in Lichtenrade, a district in southern Berlin, Ursula referred to the Holocaust as one of history’s greatest fabrications, asserting that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were not genuine.
Ursula was one of many holocaust deniers. The numbers and logistics did not allow for it. The number of deaths being six million was a propaganda number produced by the Russian for some reason known only to them is well established. Although, it was suspected as cover for the amount of Jews killed by the communists. That there was never enough cyanide produced to kill all those people. That the railways had been mostly destroyed and there was no way to get them to the camps. Even if there were gas chambers, there were not enough hours in a day to kill that many people. The Jewish worldwide population census showed around 13 million Jews worldwide in 1938. In the next census, there were slightly more than 13 million Jews in 1948. The increase in the population would have increased by around 1.3 million or 1% per year. That would likely have only been 300,000 to die in the camps. Many Jews died in Russia and elsewhere from general fighting. The holocaust did take place, it was still a huge number, just not six million. In fact, the six million was a ridiculous number. This led to people like Ursula saying that no Jews died. This is the sad resulting story.
Her Wikipedia page indicates that in November 2015, when she was 87 years old, she received a ten-month prison sentence for Holocaust denial. Further convictions in late 2016 resulted in additional prison terms. Despite her attempts to appeal these sentences, she was taken into custody by German police on May 7, 2018, to begin serving her latest two-year sentence. After being released from a prison in Bielefeld at the end of 2020, she was again charged, subsequently undergoing a new trial in March 2022, which concluded with a one-year prison sentence. On June 26, 2024, she faced yet another conviction, resulting in an additional 16 months behind bars.
Ursula’s multiple imprisonments uncover a disturbing aspect of our adversaries. They reveal an intense desperation to uphold the Holocaust narrative that has been ingrained in society for the last sixty years, indicating how fundamentally fragile this narrative is if they feel compelled to incarcerate a nonagenarian simply for holding a different view on Auschwitz. Essentially, Ursula's offences were thought crimes; she held views that diverged from the official perspective of the German authorities regarding the historical events from 1939 to 1945, leading to her arrest, fines, sentencing, and imprisonment.
Ursula could have been permitted to harbour her 'heretical' opinions without facing any legal repercussions had she chosen to keep them to herself. However, by openly discussing her 'heresy' and associating with the political dissidents on Germany's 'far right,' she crossed a line. Authoritarian regimes like that of Germany cannot tolerate their citizens questioning or even recognizing Jewish narratives about the events at Auschwitz; such beliefs must be accepted wholeheartedly. Any deviation from this is seen as a threat, prompting the possibility of exploration, alternative viewpoints, or even scepticism regarding the entire Holocaust narrative. As a result, it is deemed necessary to silence any dissenting voices or even the slightest objections, to prevent the collapse of the established narrative.
If Ursula had considered challenging or doubting the occurrence of the Cambodian genocide (1976-1980) committed by the Khmer Rouge, would she have faced fines or imprisonment? Would voicing disbelief in certain aspects of the Holodomor genocide (1932-1933), which resulted in millions of Ukrainian deaths, have led to charges of ‘incitement to hatred’? What consequences might have befallen Ursula for denying the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Turks (1915-1923), which saw around a million Armenian's killed? Alternatively, if her views on the Rwandan genocide (1994) differed, where nearly a million Tutsis were murdered, would she have faced arrest or penalties? If she proclaimed that Joseph Stalin’s regime (1929-1953) never resulted in the deaths of approximately 50 million people or denied its connection to the Great Purge targeting political opponents, would authorities have acted against her? And what if Ursula attempted to convince her fellow Germans that Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1976) was not responsible for the mass extermination of an estimated 40 to 70 million individuals? What are the chances she would be called in by the authorities for such claims?
In reality, Ursula would likely face no ramifications. No German court would prosecute her for holding different beliefs regarding various genocides, or for expressing those views to others. However, the topic of the Holocaust is perceived quite differently; not solely due to its extensive historical accuracy or numerical correctness upon careful scrutiny, but also because of the considerable power, wealth, and influence wielded by Jewish interests across Europe. Any deviation from the established figure of six million deaths in the Holocaust is not tolerated.
They insist on recognizing Auschwitz exclusively as a death camp designed solely for the extermination of Jewish prisoners. Additionally, they exert significant pressure on German officials to prevent any deviation from the established narrative.
I can somewhat relate to their stance, as every marginalized group believes itself to be the ultimate victim of historical injustices. Thus, the Jewish community is acting similarly to other groups who feel they have faced unjust persecution.
However, a crucial distinction exists.
The Jewish community employs legal strategies and criminal charges to uphold their views, thereby compelling non-Jewish individuals to conform, with the threat of potential legal consequences. Currently, 17 European nations, including Canada and Israel, have made denying the Holocaust a criminal offence. In their media, Jews frequently criticize those who challenge the established narrative, striving to depict any dissenters in an unfavourable manner. This tactic is not employed by any other ethnic group globally.
This explains why Jewish people often resist acknowledging the genocidal suffering of other groups as being equivalent to or surpassing their own experiences. This reluctance is one of the reasons behind their determination to penalize any form of Holocaust denial. A similar situation could arise in the U.S. if the First Amendment were to be weakened or completely abolished. Currently, Jewish groups in America are actively pursuing efforts to undermine this amendment, as it obstructs their attempts to criminalize all speech labelled as ‘anti-Semitic.’
What appears to be a significant fear among Jews is the power of language. Abe Foxman, the former national director of the ADL, has pointed out, “The Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers or Auschwitz. It started with words.” It's understandable, then, why they exert so much effort to regulate the thoughts and expressions of others. They only support free speech when it aligns with their interests; ultimately, their goal is to restrict speech rather than promote true freedom.
Our adversaries claim that prosecuting dissenters of the Holocaust narrative is justified on the grounds that the atrocities carried out by the Nazis were unparalleled in all of history. They argue that it is essential to preserve the historical accuracy of these events, particularly the role of Germany in the deaths of millions of Jews, which should never be overlooked. Consequently, they believe that it is the responsibility of the German government to impose fines or even prison sentences on those who ‘incite hatred’ towards Jews to prevent the recurrence of such events.
By far the worst outcome from the use of the Holocaust as a weapon against those who would speak out. This leaves the Jewish elite, the Khazarian Jews, able to commit heinous crimes against humanity without consequences. These Jews who are not Jews as Revelations warns us about. They are and have always been the high priests of Satan himself. When they start wars in Ukraine, and genocides in Israel. When they destroy society in Europe and turn the Europeans back into surfs. Nobody speaks out and calls them out as villain because of the anti-Semitism label.
Such reasoning is fundamentally flawed from the beginning. When discussing genocides or the number of human lives lost, the Holocaust does not stand as an unparalleled event in history.
Moreover, has prohibiting speech and freedom of inquiry ever promoted the advancement of truth? If the narrative surrounding the Holocaust holds factual accuracy, why is there a need to enforce it through legal penalties and punishments for those who express differing thoughts? Why can't its supporters engage in a debate within the realm of ideas and open inquiry, rather than frequently resorting to threats of legal action and substantial fines? Does the behaviour of Jews in this context reflect a commitment to truth, or does it indicate a willingness to uphold falsehoods to the extent of imprisoning a 96-year-old woman simply for holding an opposing viewpoint?
Ursula Haverbeck exemplified courage by standing firm in her beliefs, willing to face the consequences. I hope that more individuals of her background will display the same unwavering conviction. This wonderful old lady stood up and fought for freedom when so many have hidden under their beds and waited for their turn to die.
The Bricks Summit PT 3
How is the Collective West reacting to the rise of a new global majority that aligns with the approaches and ideas proposed by leaders from Russia, India, and China? What elements have led to the significant surge in the popularity of BRICS? Furthermore, to what extent is the media's coverage of events related to BRICS? What implications arise from the nations that have been added as partners?
The BRICS Summit conveyed a narrative that counters the Western view of Vladimir Putin’s supposed isolation. For the first time in many years, numerous Western media outlets recognized this constructively, suggesting that Putin is, in fact, not isolated. Media organizations such as CNN, France24, BBC, Politico, Reuters, The Guardian, Bloomberg, Foreign Affairs, and Zeit Online shared this viewpoint. In contrast, Western governments chose to remain notably silent, with some sceptics noticing that following the Summit's conclusion, Israel's attack on Iran was timed to redirect attention from the event's considerable success. The unity was stunning to watch. That nations can get on well together.
There are now 13 new countries being added to the collective.
New Countries
Population. GDP (ppp)
Indonesia 282mil 4.7tril
Malaysia 35 1.3
Thailand 65 1.6
Vietnam 100 1.6
Kazakhstan 20 .7
Uzbekistan 38 .5
Turkey 88 3.5
Belarus 10 .3
Algeria 47 .8
Uganda 51 .2
Nigeria 235 1.5
Cuba 13 .2
Bolivia 10 .2
Total 994mil 17.1tril
Existing Countries
China 1400 35tril
India 1400 15
Russia 160 8.2
Brazil 234 4.7
South Africa 64 1.1
Egypt 116 1.9
Ethiopia 132 .5
Iran 91 1.9
UAE 11 .8
Saudi Arabia 34 2.4
Total 3642 71.5
Gross total 4636 88.6
This compared to the G7 plus Australia plus some extras.
USA 334 25(15)
Japan 124 6.7
Germany 84 5.7
France 67 4
UK 69 4
Italy 59 3.4
South Korea 52 3
Canada 40 2.5
Australia 26 1.8
Spain 48 2.5
Poland 38 1.8
Taiwan 23 1.8
Netherlands 18 1.3
Belgium 12 .8
Total 994 60(50)
Examining the data from the United States might cause you to question its reliability. In the last ten years, the American economy has undergone a notable decline, aligning its performance with that of India. A more accurate representation of the GDP could be around 15 trillion, indicating that the economic scale of the USA closely resembles that of India, which boasts one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Each year, by printing money, the USA injects four trillion dollars into its economy, strategically managing the funds to present an inflated numerical strength that fosters confidence in the dollar. This economic downturn is not solely an American issue; countries like Japan, the UK, France, and Germany are also experiencing significant declines, all facing financial crisis. These nations have resorted to financialising their economies, leading to inflated economic indicators.
The combined population of BRICS countries is 4.5 times greater than that of Western nations. Their economies are advancing, with real GDP measures being almost double those of the West. Together, they account for three out of the four largest economies and five of the eight biggest by population. Moreover, they represent over half of the global population, with several countries eager to join. Currently, there are seven nations that have populations exceeding 200 million, with five of them included in BRICS, and Pakistan is expected to join next year.
The viability of the Western banking system hinges on the unwillingness of Western countries to dismantle it. BRICS nations understand that a collapse would negatively affect all parties involved and therefore prefer to maintain the system until it can no longer be salvaged. It is paradoxical that, while the USA and the EU actively oppose Russia, China, and India, these very nations are the ones keeping the current system afloat.
Individuals are retaining US dollars as part of their assets. However, these people are astute and will be vigilant regarding any changes in the landscape. Even a minor incident could trigger a widespread shift away from the dollar, resulting in a swift departure.
Where does the world proceed from here? The only factor preventing the total defeat of the West is the financial system. Global banks are compelled to operate within this system, and as a result, countries feel ensnared. This notion is misguided, as illustrated by Iran's experience when the USA attempted to isolate it with numerous sanctions. Upon the West's return, they discovered that life had continued; Iran had managed to grow and expand regardless.
The prophecies were right about the 24 of October. On that day, the world as we know it changed.
Outcomes of the BRICS summit: progressing toward a multipolar global landscape.
The XVI BRICS Summit has concluded in Kazan. What transformations are occurring in the global order, and how might cooperation among the group evolve going forward? The rise of the Global South. That is not countries south of the equator but countries south of Europe.
Russia
During the summit, President Vladimir Putin of Russia emphasized that BRICS comprises nations that share similar values—sovereign states from various continents, each with distinct development models, faiths, civilizations, and cultural identities. He noted that these nations promote “equality, good-neighbourliness, and mutual respect, along with the noble principles of friendship and harmony, as well as universal prosperity and well-being.” Furthermore, he asserted that these countries demonstrate a commitment to the world's future not just rhetorically, but through actionable efforts that significantly address pressing regional challenges. The Russian leader emphasized that given the swift growth of BRICS economies, it is essential to enhance collaboration in fields like technology, education, efficient resource development, trade, logistics, finance, and insurance. Initiatives such as the new BRICS investment platform, the initiation of consultations with the WTO, collaboration in carbon markets, and the climate research platform could serve as mechanisms to broaden cooperation. Moreover, Russia has suggested improvements to the mechanisms for sharing information regarding online dispute resolution practices in electronic commerce. This includes the establishment of an arbitration investment centre and a BRICS tax secretariat, as well as the formulation of a convention for resolving investment disputes. The proposal also encompasses creating direct connections between special economic zones, launching a BRICS grain exchange, and enhancing collaboration in subsurface resource utilization. Looking ahead, Vladimir Putin deemed it prudent to establish a BRICS 'reinsurance pool,' along with platforms dedicated to precious metals, diamonds, fair competition, logistics, and transportation.
Beyond economic initiatives, Russia has also introduced various socio-humanitarian projects: the formation of a BRICS research network focused on public health, the establishment of a BRICS alliance in artificial intelligence, and the creation of an interstate program aimed at executing sports initiatives.
Brazil
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil, urged the members of BRICS to “join forces in the alliance against hunger and poverty,” emphasizing the inequality present when developed nations prosper at the cost of developing ones. He stated that BRICS “challenges this paradigm.” Da Silva expressed strong appreciation for the efforts of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), noting that “this institution plays a crucial role in establishing the infrastructure necessary for our development… It was established as an alternative to those banks that failed to fulfill their commitments.”
He emphasized the importance for BRICS to “develop a financial system aimed at lowering the costs of trade exchanges among our nations.” Brazil intends to prioritize this matter during its presidency next year, alongside addressing climate change: “It is clear that developed nations bear historical responsibility for the current global suffering. They made commitments to lower emissions but did not fulfill them. Our planet is singular, and its future depends on us.”
Egypt
At the summit, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt emphasized the importance his nation places on "bolstering the multipolar system" and "securing financing for developmental objectives in emerging economies through the establishment of trustworthy mechanisms." In this context, Egypt acknowledges the NDB's endeavours to "promote development initiatives, particularly in areas such as transportation, clean energy, infrastructure, the digital sector, and urban development."
Sisi assured that Egypt is prepared to "enhance collaboration with member countries on global platforms and engage in discussions regarding climate change, food security, digitization, education, and scientific advancement." Furthermore, Egypt is keen on implementing national currencies for trade, fostering cooperation with the BRICS Business Council, and reinforcing connections through the group's interbank collaboration framework.
India
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his support for initiatives that promote enhanced financial integration among BRICS nations. He highlighted that transactions in national currencies and cross-border payments will strengthen collaboration. Modi also shared India's successful implementation of a unified payment interface in its bilateral dealings with the UAE as a model for his fellow leaders.
The Prime Minister viewed the New Development Bank (NDB) as a vital opportunity to address the development challenges faced by the Global South. He emphasized the need to ensure long-term financial stability and broaden market access through the bank's expansion. Furthermore, he underscored the significance of prioritizing the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises for effective multilateral cooperation.
Looking ahead, India aims to establish a digital platform dedicated to the planning and execution of infrastructure projects among the group. Additionally, it expressed its willingness to share expertise in healthcare digitalization and encouraged BRICS nations to participate in its initiatives related to the UN Climate Change Conference.
Iran
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasized that the primary objective of Iran within BRICS is the aspiration for “a new world order that is more equitable and secure.” He noted that “the era of unilateralism, where prosperity and progress were achievable only through the framework established by the West, is nearing its conclusion.” In this context, he remarked, “the emergence and growth of BRICS presents a chance for the global community to not solely align its future with the interests of Western powers…This coalition has effectively established itself as an alternative pathway.”
Following its expansion, BRICS, as stated by the Iranian leader, “encompasses a substantial segment of developing nations and emerging markets.” Iran’s primary hopes revolve around diminishing the dominance of the dollar in the international economy and establishing a “BRICS currency basket or a new mechanism for non-dollar transactions,” enabling nations to refrain from “bearing the costs of misguided financial policies imposed by the United States and the corrupt practices within their financial systems.”
M. Pezeshkian believes that BRICS has the potential to “amplify the unheard voices of the global community.” He asserted, “We embrace the BRICS vision of overhauling global governance, fostering peace, security, and inclusive economic development, enhancing transparency, and reinforcing democracy within global financial institutions…to cultivate alternative avenues for growth and prosperity in the countries of the Global South.”
China
Xi Jinping, the President of China, emphasized the need to "advance the BRICS peace agenda to safeguard common security," particularly now as "the world enters a phase of upheaval and change." Furthermore, he urged for the "enhancement of the BRICS innovation agenda," which includes strengthening collaboration in artificial intelligence, jointly investigating deep-sea resources, facilitating interactions between special economic zones, and establishing a "BRICS cooperation network for digital ecosystems."
China emphasizes the importance of a green agenda as well, stating, "All BRICS nations should actively align with the global trend towards green and low-carbon transformations," by increasing partnerships in the green sector, renewable energy, and sustainable development of mineral resources. Even though China admits that much of the climate change movement is nothing more than Globalists seeking to strip nations of their sovereignty. They have such a vast population, they have to strive to remove as much pollution as possible if their nation is to survive.
On a global scale, BRICS is tasked with "advancing a fair agenda aimed at reforming the global governance system," as the current pace of reforms "does not match the rapid shifts in the balance of international power." The bloc is poised to ensure "representation and voting rights for the Global South," and can play a key role in overhauling the international financial system, thereby boosting the influence of the New Development Bank (NDB). Lastly, in the realm of humanitarian efforts, China aims to "promote the cultural and humanitarian agenda of BRICS" alongside fostering cooperation in the advancement of digital education.
UAE
The President of the UAE, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, asserts that collaboration within BRICS is essential "not merely to address present challenges, but also to establish a blueprint for a sustainable future economy." For the UAE, attributes such as flexibility, openness, and innovation are vital in this cooperative effort. Al Nahyan emphasized, “We back initiatives on the global stage aimed at creating platforms that encourage discussions regarding the green economy, sustainable development, and investment.” The UAE is turning into a trading centre for all kinds of commodities. Grain, oil, gold, and silver. While commodities trading through the Comex and the LMBA are falling quickly, trading through the UAE and the Shanghai Exchange are increasing dramatically. New Delhi and Moscow have growing exchanges as will
Another key focus for the UAE in BRICS is “expanding into new markets.” The nation seeks not only to attract foreign investments, but also to wisely invest its domestic capital.
Ethiopia
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed expressed that BRICS "offers hope for achieving multilateralism within the global structure and addressing the challenges currently confronting the world... while working collaboratively for the benefit of developing nations based on equality". He pointed out that "economic advancements in developing countries have often faced obstacles from an inequitable global financial system." BRICS has the potential to rectify this issue, as its "collective voice encompasses half of the world's population and a third of its GDP," enabling it to "serve as a transformative agent towards establishing a more equitable global order."
Furthermore, for Ethiopia, BRICS serves as a "model of collaboration and unity" in tackling worldwide issues. Abiy Ahmed endorsed his peers' suggestions concerning the enhancement of high-tech cooperation, industrial connections, energy partnerships, and tourism, while also highlighting the significance of "alternative funding for infrastructure projects" offered by the New Development Bank. Additionally, Ethiopia hopes to gain BRICS backing in ensuring adequate representation for Africa in the UN Security Council: “This is not merely about representation; it’s about justice and equality. Consequently, every country will be enabled to participate in global governance.”
South Africa
Cyril Ramaphosa, the President of South Africa, referred to the BRICS history as one characterized by solidarity, mutual respect, and shared benefits. He emphasized that BRICS consists of a diverse group of nations aimed at altering the future of the Global South. To accomplish this, it is essential to harness the full potential of their economic collaboration, promote sustainable development for everyone—not merely for certain nation groups—and take significant actions to foster shared prosperity that is equitable for all.
With regard to economic collaboration, the South African leader highlighted the desire to utilize national currencies for trade. He also pointed out the necessity of addressing climate change issues, which pose significant challenges for developing nations, when discussing sustainable development. Furthermore, he noted the importance of “addressing the challenges faced by small and medium-sized enterprises within BRICS” and “initiating joint programs focused on export development, industrial collaboration, and technology sharing.” In this context, Ramaphosa advocated for reforming the WTO and enhancing “BRICS cooperation in the mineral resources sector.” He views the New Development Bank (NDB) as pivotal for the partnership: “The bank is essential for fulfilling the common aspirations and objectives of developing economies collectively.” Looking ahead, he envisions BRICS evolving into “a powerful instrument for promoting global peace and progress across all sectors of the economy and other areas of life.”
The presidency of BRICS under Russia sought to enhance the group's global standing and to foster collaboration across key areas while also integrating new members into the association's activities. It can be asserted confidently that these objectives have been achieved. As highlighted by Vladimir Putin, “the new members recognized that it is feasible to collaborate and attain results within BRICS. They realized that the foundational principle of our association is mutual respect, along with a necessary consideration of each other's interests.”
Regarding the attitudes of the member states, the Kazan summit underscored their shared expectations, perspectives, and objectives. This is particularly significant considering the group's expansion this year. Other nations that have attained partner state status are likely to emulate the newly admitted members. Just as a large family operates, the international order necessitates not only mutual comprehension but also ongoing collaboration. A new phase of this effort within BRICS has already commenced. Now there are 14 new countries, taking the total to twenty-four.
Kazan Russia just hosts BRICS Summit: A Critical Moment for Global Politics and the Economy
A new era is emerging in the world, marking the gradual decline of the U.S.'s exclusive dominance and its currency, the Dollar.
We are currently experiencing monumental times. One significant issue is the tragic genocide in Gaza, which will be remembered as one of the darkest chapters in human history during the 21st century. This atrocity is alarmingly backed by numerous countries that proclaim to be democratic and to advocate for human rights, including the United States and Germany. Additionally, we are witnessing the emergence of a new era, marked by the gradual decline of U.S. dominance and the hegemony of the American dollar. The mass printing of dollars to cover wars and fire the genocide that is taking place in Gaza. How the dollar and the dollar system is being used as a weapon. This worked against smaller countries, but when they did that to Russia a fatal mistake was made. This dominance, which took shape after World War II, has become rigid in a drastically transformed global landscape in the 21st century.
In this two-part article, I will investigate how this transformative moment is unfolding, with a focus on the contentious role of the BRICS Summit that took place in Kazan from October 22-24, 2024. The first segment will delve into the new payment systems and their anticipated mechanisms.
The Decline of U.S. Hegemony
The BRICS monetary and payment frameworks represent a significant stride towards diminishing U.S. dominance over the dollar-based system. Not that it was introduced at this summit. The development of this new system has been years in the making. China, Russia, Iran, and India have been running tests to get a working model. They have finally come up with a working model. This has already been used between Russia and Iran. The formal introduction of the system took place at a meeting of the Finance Ministers several months ago. At Kazan they reiterated the system and said it is ready for use. The twenty-three countries will now slowly start using it. Slow and steady is the catch cry.
Following World War II, the United States built a global system reflective of its interests, creating institutions that eventually catered to both contemporary needs and its own agendas.
The various crises spawned by its financial systems, along with numerous wars and invasions of sovereign states, and the unilateral sanctions that caused immense suffering and loss of life in nations like Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan, have served as a crucial wake-up call for the global community, particularly for the Global South. Furthermore, the manipulation of the world trade system through the U.S. dollar, which was enforced as the exclusive currency for oil transactions, exemplifies the extent of this imposition.
Under the guidance of China and Russia, the BRICS has embodied the aspirations of the Global South for freedom and affluence, instilling a sense of urgency for the establishment of a new world order. This is starting to look like a reality for them rather than a pipe dream. They have a working system in their hands.
What did the Kazan Summit Achieve?
The Kazan Summit is set on the establishment of an integrated payment system for the BRICS, which other nations outside the group may also have the opportunity to use, as noted by French economist Jacques Sapir. They announced that they are now in the stage of developing all the institutions that will stabilise the system. Organisations that rival the IMF to new commodity trading centres that rival and remove the totally corrupt Comex and LMBA. The west will no longer be able to steal the resources of the poorer countries.
The core challenge was in the creation of this internal payment system that has garnered much attention within BRICS discussions. It has been clarified that this will not function as a currency, but as a payment mechanism announced by Vladimir Putin during the economic summit. Russian Finance Minister Mr. Siluanov has provided further elaboration on this topic in various statements.
The objective of BRICS was to develop a payment framework that does not incorporate the dollar or the Euro. Essentially, they aim to facilitate transactions independently of these currencies. However, without causing them to collapse. This may be impossible for the USD as so many trillions are held outside the US. Officially 13 trillion, but in reality, likely twice that. At some point when it becomes obvious and probably well before that, there is going to be a mad dash for the door to get rid of dollars.
The Mechanics of the New Payment System
In the context of international trade, a unit of account specifies the sum to be paid, a transaction unit denotes the currency used for the exchange, and a settlement currency establishes the payment medium for the seller and the obligation for the buyer.
Currently, there seems to be a consensus that the settlement currencies will be the domestic currencies of the participating nations. Nonetheless, since these currencies can change in value relative to each other, it is crucial to establish a unit of account as well as a settlement unit, highlighting an area of concern. This will likely eventually be solved being the same, a brick unit. The Australian dollar will be 90% of a Brick Unit and the New Zealand dollar will be 85% of a Brick Unit. The country still gets to call their currency by whatever name they wish. The real value will be a Brick Unit, a cryptocurrency. There will need to be strong restrictions on how much money a government can print out of thin air.
Approximately a year ago, a proposal emerged to implement a system akin to the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) managed by the International Monetary Fund. However, Russia and China have expressed that the existing SDR framework includes the dollar and the euro—currencies they prefer to sidestep. This has led to a shift toward developing an electronic unit of account.
This situation exemplifies how cryptocurrency technology can influence political systems. A type of cryptocurrency will be utilized, but it will be linked to a tangible asset, likely gold. According to Sapir, though, the cryptocurrency's value in gold may vary; thus, it does not represent a gold standard system. It does limit the amount of money that can be printed out of thin air.
Countries will engage in an exchange of this cryptocurrency for their national currencies: selling nations will receive a specified amount of cryptocurrency, while buying nations will have to provide a designated sum in return. Consequently, national currencies will be necessary for purchasing cryptocurrency or converting it back to conventional currency.
Implementing this framework will necessitate various technical solutions. Reports indicate that Russia is inclined to have transactions or conversions from cryptocurrency to national currencies occur on a semi-annual basis or at year-end. Transactions in this arrangement would remain in cryptocurrency for a six-month or year-long duration until settlements are finalized. This allows for a scenario where one nation purchases BRICS goods from another while trading with a third party. The objective of this structure is to minimize frequent transactions, facilitating a single final transaction upon settlement. This whole argument seem flawed. If these transactions are happening electronially then there should be no reason for all this to happen instantly.
My Conclusions
China, India and Russia are the biggest, third and fourth-biggest economies in the world. The numbers for the USA GDP are clearly nonsense. They are in a depression with no hope of exit, as is Europe. While India and China are both growing fast. In all the Bric’s countries, you are seeing good growth.To stand in the way of their progress to becoming the world's two superpowers will get that country run over.
The inaugural modern Olympics took place in Athens in 1896. It was a modest event featuring some unusual sports. The true Olympic Games, however, were hosted in Paris in 1900.
With the end of times seemingly approaching, one wonders if these will be the final games. The last Pope, number 111, has arrived. Charles the Great (Charlemagne), was the first king of Europe, and now Charles the Third, the last reigning king in Europe.
The conclusion of the games revealed an event marked by oddities. Prior to the commencement, Russia faced a ban seemingly without justification, rooted more in political motives than any real infractions. They were accused of doping, despite their medal tally being commensurate with their population size, which would suggest they are among the least likely to cheat with drugs.
The opening ceremony set a controversial tone, offending Christians and anyone with spiritual beliefs. A particularly shocking portrayal of the Last Supper by a group of drag performers was undeniably unsettling. Additionally, they enlisted a heavy metal band with satanic themes during the proceedings. One striking image involved a woman with her head resting in her arms. This grand event, intended to unify people, instead featured an appalling affront to a quarter of the global population. No wonder when Macron made his opening speech the crowd loudly booed him.
The issue of male boxers participating in women's boxing sparked further debate, as these men physically overpowered their female competitors. A notable revelation was that one of these male boxers hailed from Algeria, a predominantly Muslim nation. You would have thought this would never have happened. This raises questions about whether men can physically assault women simply by donning skirts. This is not a matter of opinion, as both boxers had previously faced disqualification for being male.
Then there was the Australian break Dance who did not know what Break Dancing was. Truly bazaar.
In another instance, the USA accused Chinese swimmers of doping. In response, the Chinese highlighted that the US testing board had previously allowed several athletes who tested positive for drugs to compete unpunished. Ultimately, it turns out that the USA itself was implicated in the doping scandal.
Determining individual instances of cheating can be challenging, but it is easier to identify nations that ignore the issue altogether, as evidenced by their disproportionate success in winning medals. Countries such as New Zealand and Australia provide excellent support for young athletes, which can offer them a slight competitive edge. Occasionally, a nation may excel in less popular sports, although this occurrence is becoming rarer.
So, which nations stand out for having a high number of doping violations? France, as the host nation, is likely to secure more medals than average. Smaller countries, with populations under ten million, can achieve skewed medal counts with just a handful of victories.
The USA is already well-known for this.
Australia: 54 medals at a rate of 2.16 per million
New Zealand: 20 medals at 4.0
United Kingdom: 65 medals at 1.12
Canada and Italy exhibit expected figures, with a medal count per million of .65.
The issue of doping seems rampant among English-speaking Commonwealth nations. Conversely, it is encouraging to note that drug use in the Caribbean has significantly decreased. With female athletes, tell-tale signs of doping include unnatural muscle development, particularly in the neck area. While this is not definitive proof of cheating, it is a common indicator. For example, some female sprinters from the USA and a New Zealand canoeist raise suspicions.
In the past, during the Soviet Union era, the signs of illicit drug use were overt. Observers could easily identify athletes who were likely using performance enhancers. The sophistication of the substances available has only increased since then.
These Olympics may very well be referred to as the “empty Olympics” due to the surprisingly low turnout of spectators. The haunting image of a high jumper on the field while the stands remained sparsely filled was striking. In contrast, during the London Games, securing a ticket was nearly impossible, with every venue brimming with fans.
The closing ceremony ended with a display that many considered to be dark in nature. A figure resembling a dark angel or even Satan hovered over indistinct figures. Russia's foreign ministry criticized a key element of the Paris Olympics closing ceremony, labelling it as “obvious Satanism.” Maria Zakharova expressed her views on her Telegram channel, referring to the “Golden Voyager” segment, which was meant to symbolize the gold-coated vinyl record launched aboard the Voyager spacecraft in 1977. However, Zakharova did not share that sentiment. She stated, “The only thing worse than the opening of the Olympic Games in Paris could be their closing. France did not miss this chance.”
‘Everything is in plain text: a fallen angel turns people into zombies, subjugates humanity to his will, which has less and less time left.
As the world's attention was diverted to the Wars, EU leaders seized the opportunity to reform financial regulations, ultimately aiming to erode the European middle class.
Behind the scenes, EU leaders convened to reassess their priorities, akin to rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. As the world's attention was focused on their decisions to support Ukraine and Israel, they quietly worked to comply with the new budgetary framework.
In the shadows, the components of a draconian, even biblical, system were being stealthily put in place.
This development takes on added significance in light of the Federal Reserve's stringent monetary policies and the potential shift towards fiscal conservatism in the US, under the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson.
The impending expiration of the Maastricht Treaty's budget regulations in January will usher in a new era of austerity measures for the EU's 28 member states. In essence, this means adhering to strict targets, capping budget deficits at 3% of GDP and maintaining a debt-to-GDP ratio below 60% - with France being the notable exception.
A recent European Commission summit in Brussels sparked intense debate on a pressing issue: how to navigate the budget regulations without alienating remaining investors. The original rules were put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which, in my opinion, was a deliberate strategy to dismantle the European middle class. From an EU policy perspective, the pandemic was a crisis designed to necessitate a predetermined solution: consolidating Europe's finances under the European Commission and European Central Bank's authority.
This investment strategy has been partially successful, with the European Commission granted limited authority to issue pandemic loans within the €800 billion COVID-19 recovery fund. The first instalment of these loans, known as SURE bonds, marked a significant step towards bolstering fiscal measures. It appears that efforts are being made behind the scenes to align these bonds with market standards, potentially to attract more investors, at the expense of the original investors who bought in when ECB rates were at -0.6%.
As global attention was diverted by the Wars, European Union leaders capitalized on the opportunity to reform financial regulations, ultimately aiming to erode the economic power of the European middle class and pave the way for a return to a feudal-like system.
Behind the scenes, EU leaders reassessed their priorities, much like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship, while publicly proclaiming their support for Ukraine and Israel. Their true focus, however, was on conforming to the new budgetary framework.
This development takes on added significance in the context of the Federal Reserve's tight monetary policies and the potential shift towards fiscal conservatism in the US, under the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson.
The motivations behind Powell's rate hikes are open to interpretation. While some believe he intentionally sought to dismantle the middle class and pave the way for the World Economic Forum's proposed Great Reset, a more nuanced view recognizes the complexities of global dynamics that cannot be reduced to simplistic narratives of malicious intent. The European Union's exploitation of Powell's assertive US dollar strategy for its own interests does not necessarily imply his direct involvement.
The tendency to attribute every event to a grand, orchestrated plan reveals a reluctance to confront the intricate nature of human actions, which often defy simplistic explanations.
However, it is undeniable that the release of bonds such as SURE and NGEU during a period of heightened political influence and disruption coincided with the Davos Forum and the EU's efforts to exert power in the post-Trump era and potentially undermine Powell's bid for re-election as FOMC Chair.
As we approach late 2024, it is surprising to find ourselves in the current situation, even considering the significant influence wielded by powerful individuals. Notably, if central banks are the primary purchasers of these bonds, the rising yields will accelerate their financial insolvency, depriving them of essential capital, as exemplified by the recent capital injection required at The Bundesbank.
The fiscal disunity plaguing the European Union, exacerbated by Italy's struggles to rein in its spending despite relying on external funding, has created a sense of urgency for increased cooperation among member states. This pressing need is further underscored by the decline in bond prices, which has led to a rapid depletion of central banks' balance sheets.
As the true extent of bond devaluation becomes apparent through their trade values on European stock exchanges, it will become clear that the EU's policies have pushed its members to the brink of desperation, paving the way for genuine fiscal integration. This development is expected to trigger a surge in bond prices.
The underlying strategy appears to be one of controlled financial destabilization, aimed at forcing individuals to the edge of collapse and thereby ensuring their compliance with the proposed plan. Furthermore, those with remaining financial resources will be able to capitalize on discounted assets, reaping substantial profits.
A fundamental paradox lies at the heart of this issue. Despite the EU Commission's dissatisfaction, SURE and NGEU bonds continue to be traded at yields significantly higher than those of similar German bonds. The latest report submitted to the EC paints a bleak picture of the market's evolution.
The lack of fiscal unity remains a significant weakness for the EU compared to the US, perpetuating investor anxiety and undermining confidence. While Lagarde and the EC strive to provide stability, they face a substantial hurdle in the form of the European public, who have never fully accepted being governed by unelected Brussels-based bureaucrats. The ultimate goal of SURE and NGEU bonds is to establish a genuine central EU borrower, but without direct taxation powers, an AA+ rating does not guarantee a bond's financial viability.
This explains the persistence of the Ukrainian conflict. The need for an active conflict goes beyond merely concealing defaults or imposing strict capital controls; it also serves to prompt the US to take unilateral action in addressing this conflict.
France's decision to provide support to Gaza raises questions about its underlying motivations, prompting a closer look at the driving forces behind this move.
The flaws inherent in the euro are at the heart of the issues with the Maastricht rules. The lack of a unified tax and spending authority across borders means that the European Central Bank's interest rate policy unfairly burdens countries with lower labour productivity, leading to unintended consequences.
In countries like Greece and Italy, the strong euro puts local traders at a disadvantage compared to their German counterparts, resulting in persistent trade deficits and a transfer of wealth from these countries to Germany. This phenomenon is similar to the situation in the US, where the uniform interest rate system has historically favoured states like California over those like Mississippi, despite the fact that blue states effectively subsidize red states.
Germany's benefit from the euro was disrupted by Powell's rate hikes, which prioritized American economic interests over those of Germany and China. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has consistently pushed for stricter fiscal discipline, while France and Germany have engaged in discussions that may put other European countries at a disadvantage.
This is reminiscent of situations where seemingly ill-conceived legislation is introduced and passed, ultimately harming small countries and businesses. The recent rate increases by Powell have driven up the costs of obtaining or managing dollars, causing frustration among those affected, including Lagarde, who had sought to issue nearly a trillion dollars in COVID relief bonds at 0% interest.
As the world's enthusiasm for combating Climate Change wanes, global investors are hesitant to commit to large-scale investments without the backing of the Federal Reserve, which has led to doubts about the EU's stability. The EU's appeal has diminished, much like a stale fish or an unwelcome guest.
In this global financial structure, the Bank of Italy operates under the ECB's authority, but the ECB itself is beholden to the Federal Reserve. This is why Powell's position holds significant sway. The potential rise of Mike Johnson as Speaker could bring about positive outcomes, potentially slowing the rush towards financial chaos by focusing on specific spending bills and restoring genuine negotiations in Congress. However, this may just be hopium. We see with Joe Biden, where he vacantly stumbles around in his geriatric state, there is a total inability to do anything about the situation. So the same goes all of American politics.
However, this scenario also adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing conflicts between central banks, posing serious risks and concerns about the state of affairs by the end of the year. The escalating actions of Israel in Gaza and Ukraine, pose a significant threat, and the United States appears to be shifting blame, reminiscent of the post-9/11 era, in order to instigate a desired conflict, this time targeting Iran and Russia.
Meanwhile, the European Commission is pushing to replace individual sovereign bonds with unified bonds, aiming to initiate fiscal integration this winter to stay competitive with the US and China for global investment. If successful, this move would signify their intention to present a united front to European investors, potentially outlasting Powell, while also hoping for congressional supporters in the US to initiate a war with any available target.
This strategy aims to maintain more favourable bond spreads compared to the US, particularly as the US descends into chaos and becomes a reality TV spectacle, with influential figures like Davos pulling out all the stops for attention.