[Ed: PHA Taranaki, the group running the free health clinic where I volunteer, belongs to PHA New Zealand. We’re part of an international movement.]

https://rumble.com/v6roii3-wellness-wednesday-with-james-roguski-a-very-unique-way-of-looking-at-healt.html

https://rumble.com/user/AustraliaPHA

The-PHA.org

WORLDWIDE

People’s Health Alliance – New Zealand

The-PHA.nz

https://rumble.com/user/PHANZ

PHA NZ National Telegram Channel:

https://t.me/PHANewZealand

PHA NZ Notices Channel:

https://t.me/peopleshealthalliancenz

PHA-Australia.org

https://rumble.com/user/AustraliaPHA

https://t.me/phaaustralia

North America:

https://t.me/+8Z-evRSxWMs0ZWFk

Via https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/the-peoples-health-alliance

Monopoly World

Directed by Louis Waller (2024)

Film Review

The present world economy is dominated by monopolies

• Apple owns a 70%  share of the smartphone market.
• Luxothca owns an 80% share of the eyewear market (they own both the Rayban and Prada brand, among many others), resulting in a 5,000% margin on sunglasses.
• Expedia has huge monopoly on travel booking sites.
• Four companies produce 80% of US meat.
• Comcast own 70% of the broadcast industry.
• Nestle has a monopoly on candy brands and baby foods.
• A monopoly in hospital chain ownership was used to suppress union wage.
• Two companies own 82% of coffin companies.
• The vast majority of Internet visitors use Google’s search engine and make a Meta network (Facebook, Instagram or Whatsap) their primary social media platform.
• Only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world. PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, Associated British Foods, and Mondelez.

Historically granting monopolies used to be a prerogative of the British crown, a trend  Elizabeth I began in the 17th century. The latter created monopolies over virtually every aspect of life. Adam Smith warned against monopolies in the Wealth of Nations, concerned it enabled corporations to conspire against the public interest by raising prices.

The Massachusetts Bay colony banned monopolies in their 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties. The Maryland and North Carolina legislatures banned them in 1776. Anger against the East India Company monopoly on tea was one trigger of the US War of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wanted to include a clause in the US Constitution banning monopolies.

By the end of the 19th century, the US was dominated by a new kind of monopolies. Instead of being granted by government, these new monopolies came about when more efficient businesses bought out their less successful competitors. At the start of the 20th century, monopolies controlled the oil, meat packing, rail road, tobacco, coal, lead and steel industries.

There are two types of monopolistic integration: horizontal in which you take over companies similar to yours and vertical companies you rely on for supplies and services.

In the late 19th century, a number of populist grassroots movements formed to fight the worst abuses of US monopolies:

1. Price fixing (gouging consumers with higher price after wiping out your competition)
2. Lobbying and bribing government officials for special privileges
3. Excessive autocracy – many monopolists (like William Rockefeller) became monarch-like dictators
4. Bans on union organizing

The first populist movement was the Grangers. Formed in the 1860s and 1870s, it ultimately boasted 700,000 members and 21,000 lodges across the US. It was formed when price gouging by Cornelius Vanderbilt, the railroad czar, caused a number of farmers to lose their farms.

A series of severe economic crashes (caused when private banks deliberately shrank the money supply*) in 1873, 1890 and 1907 gave rise to first anti-monopoly legislation. In 1888 Iowa passed the first antitrust law, making it illegal for monopolies to collude to fix the price or quantity of goods they produced. In 1890 Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In 1895 the Supreme Court used the Act to block a sugar company from acquiring four competitors to control 80% of the sugar supply. Teddy Roosevelt used the law in 1911 to break up 40 monopolies, including Standard Oil.

In 1914 congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, which was far more explicit in targeting monopolistic behavior. This included price fixing, exclusivity bans against retailers stocking a competitor’s product (eg Microsoft’s requirement for all computer manufacturers to load  Windows software and the Microsoft browsers) and a requirement for corporations to notify the federal government of all mergers.

AT&T was broken up into many smaller companies in the 1980s, reducing phone rates

Since the 1980s, antitrust laws have been less robustly enforced.

The landmark 2001 case (which led Bill Gates to resign as Microsoft CEO) was an exception. After an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice reached a settlement in which Microsoft agreed to abandon some of its worst anti-competitive practice (allowing manufacturers to install competitors’ software) on new computers.

The FTC has an ongoing case against Meta for buying Instagram (which was on track to surpass Facebook in user numbers) and Whatsup to eliminate competition.

The Department of Justice currently has antitrust case against Google. It claims their exclusivity contracts with retailers prevents Apple (which has sufficient capacity to do so) of creating their own search engine.

*Vastly increasing their holdings by triggering massive farm foreclosures.

Dr Eddy Betterman

• Brown rice contains significantly higher levels of arsenic than white rice, with the toxic element concentrating in the bran layer.
• Children under 5, especially infants, face the highest risk due to their higher food intake relative to body weight.
• Despite its nutritional benefits, brown rice may unintentionally expose young eaters to arsenic levels exceeding safety thresholds.

The hidden danger in “healthier” rice

For years, health-conscious consumers have opted for brown rice, believing its intact bran layer makes it a superior choice. But a new study from Michigan State University reveals an unsettling truth—this “healthier” alternative contains nearly 40% more toxic arsenic than processed white rice. Published in Risk Analysis, the research highlights how the same part of the grain that delivers extra nutrients also concentrates a dangerous carcinogen—inorganic arsenic.

“Rice bran and brown rice are shown to have a higher arsenic content and inorganic arsenic concentration than the grain endosperm or white rice,” the study warns. The findings expose a critical contradiction in modern nutrition: a food praised for its health benefits might actually pose real risks, particularly to vulnerable populations like infants and toddlers. Is the push for “natural” and “whole” foods inadvertently harming the youngest consumers?

Why rice is a magnet for arsenic

Rice absorbs arsenic from soil more efficiently than nearly any other crop—up to 10 times more than other grains, according to researchers. The key lies in how it’s grown: flooded paddies create conditions where arsenic dissolves into the water, making it easier for rice plants to absorb. Once inside the plant, arsenic accumulates in the bran layer—the very component removed when refining brown rice into white.

The study found that bran alone contains arsenic at levels 10 times higher than white rice itself. This has alarming implications for products like brown rice syrup, which has already been linked to 30 times more arsenic in some infant formulas. Could parents unknowingly be poisoning their children while trying to feed them “healthier” options?

Infants at greatest risk

The researchers analyzed rice consumption across age groups and found that children aged 6–24 months who regularly eat brown rice may exceed safe arsenic intake limits by nearly 40%. The daily dose for some toddlers reached 0.295 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, surpassing the 0.21 microgram safety threshold set by international food safety agencies.

While adults face minimal risk from occasional brown rice consumption, the study warns that heavy rice eaters—especially those on gluten-free diets or with poor nutrition—could also accumulate dangerous levels over time. “Our analysis shows that not only is this focus on nutritional content limited, but it also agrees with other studies that find elevated risks of arsenic exposure to children,” the researchers noted.

Arsenic in food: The silent poison hiding in everyday staples

Arsenic, a naturally occurring heavy metal, is a known carcinogen linked to bladder, lung, and skin cancers. Yet it remains a hidden contaminant in many foods, particularly rice. In its inorganic form—the most toxic variant—arsenic disrupts cellular metabolism, causes DNA damage, and has been tied to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and developmental issues in children.

The EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water is 10 parts per billion (ppb)—yet no federal limit exists for arsenic in food. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) sets a strict 0.21 ?g/kg body weight per day limit, while the FDA has only proposed (not enforced) 100 ppb for infant rice cereal.

Where is arsenic found?

• Rice & rice products (brown rice, rice bran, rice syrup, cereal)
• Apple & grape juice (due to arsenic-based pesticides once used on orchards)
• Seafood (organic arsenic, less toxic but still concerning)

Numerous studies show brown rice averages 154 ppb total arsenic, with inorganic arsenic making up 70% of that. By comparison, white rice averages about 92 ppb. For infants consuming rice cereal daily, estimated exposure can reach 6 times higher than adults relative to body weight. Worse, arsenic bio-accumulates—meaning it builds up in the body over time. The 2012 Dartmouth study, which found alarming levels in infant formula with brown rice syrup, warned that even low-dose chronic exposure could harm neurological development.

With mounting evidence that foods marketed as “wholesome” may carry hidden toxins, will regulators finally demand clearer labeling—or will parents remain in the dark?

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2025/04/11/brown-rice-contains-40-more-toxic-arsenic-than-white-rice/

Fox News

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard made a startling revelation during an open cabinet meeting Wednesday, announcing that she has evidence that electronic voting machines have been tampered with to manipulate the results of past US elections.

“I’ve got a long list of things that we’re investigating. We have the best going after this, election integrity being one of them,” Gabbard stated.

“We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time,” she continued.

Gabbard emphasised that the evidence shows that machines are “vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast.”

She told President Trump that the finding “further drives forward your mandate to bring about paper ballots across the country so that voters can have faith in the integrity of our elections.”

It seems the ‘conspiracy theorists’ were right again.

Gabbard also announced that she is about to make public a huge amount of information relating to the assassinations of RFK, and MLK Jr.

Gabbard followed up on the comments in a Fox News interview, also noting she has teams of people scouring FBI and CIA warehouses looking for hidden documents on the JFK assassination.

[…]

Via https://modernity.news/2025/04/11/tulsi-gabbard-drops-two-huge-bombshells/

Charlotte de la Fuente/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Pharmaceutical company Novartis announced plans to build seven facilities in the United States and expand others in a $23 billion investment over five years on the heels of President Donald Trump’s announcement of forthcoming tariffs on imported drugs.

The Swiss company revealed the major investment in a press release.

“This commitment enables Novartis to expand on its current manufacturing, research and technology presence across the country with 10 facilities, including 7 brand new facilities, creating nearly 1,000 new jobs at Novartis and approximately 4,000 additional US jobs,” the release said.

Six of the facilities will be manufacturing plants, two of which will focus on radioligand therapy in Florida and Texas. It remains to be seen where the other four plants will be built.

Moreover, the company is establishing a biomedical research innovation center in San Diego as part of the investment, and it is expanding three of its production facilities in Indiana, New Jersey, and California.

The company also noted that its goal is to ensure “all key Novartis medicines for US patients will be made in the United States.”

On Tuesday, Trump notably pledged to impose tariffs on drugs produced in other countries.

“So we’re going to be announcing, very shortly, a major tariff on pharmaceuticals,” Trump said Tuesday night at a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) dinner. “And…when they hear that, they will leave China, they will leave other places, because… most of their product is sold here.”

“And they’re going to be opening up their plants all over the place in our country,” he added.

Trump doubled down on his statement on Wednesday.

“We realized during COVID that we don’t make our drugs or our pharmaceuticals in this country,” Trump told reporters.

However, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan denied that potential tariffs are the primary influence behind the move, per Reuters.

“We believe we can manage the tariffs – though of course they will be very painful – so while that is a factor (behind this investment), it’s not the driving factor,” Narasimhan said.

This is the latest in an influx of investments into the United States since Trump returned to office and began warning of and imposing his tariff policies. Stargate, a joint project between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank, has pledged a $500 billion investment in America, and Apple announced it is investing $500 billion in America, which are just a few of the other examples.

[…]

Via https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/04/10/swiss-pharma-company-announces-23-billion-u-s-investment-days-after-trump-pledged-major-tariff-on-drug-imports/

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on Monday announced plans to “expeditiously review” new science on the possible health risks of water fluoridation.

Also on Monday, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he plans to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending water fluoridation nationally.

Kennedy’s deputy chief of staff Stefanie Spear said Kennedy would direct the CDC’s community preventive services task force to study fluoride and make a new recommendation, The New York Times reported.

Zeldin and Kennedy made the announcements at a press conference in Utah, which last week became the first state to ban the practice of adding fluoride to community water supplies.

The growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects gained national attention when a federal judge in September ruled against the EPA in a landmark lawsuit brought by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and others.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels recommended by public health agencies in the U.S. poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and that the agency must regulate it.

Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children.

The EPA announced in January that it planned to appeal the ruling, days before President Joe Biden left office.

People long concerned with the harmful effects of water fluoridation on children’s health celebrated the EPA’s announcement that it would review the latest science, in an apparent response to the lawsuit. However, in a post on X, Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, urged caution.

Zeldin didn’t mention in Monday’s announcement that the EPA is under a court order to regulate the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Instead, he said the agency would conduct a review under a different statute, the Safe Drinking Water Act, effectively sidestepping the obligation imposed by the court, Connett said.

The EPA’s appeal of the lawsuit, due April 11, is going forward.

“If EPA files the appeal, as it looks like they will, that will likely say more about EPA’s true intentions with fluoride than a commitment to do another ‘review’ — especially since EPA’s ‘reviews’ of the fluoride literature in the past have been atrocious,” Connett added.

The CDC makes recommendations on whether communities should add fluoride to their drinking water and at what levels. However, the EPA sets the maximum levels allowed in water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The current maximum allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water are 4.0 milligrams/liter (mg/L), which is many orders of magnitude higher than the currently recommended dosage of 0.7 mg/L — which itself has demonstrated a risk to children’s health in recent studies.

Chen ruled that the EPA must regulate fluoride under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates substances whose production, use or disposal may cause unreasonable risks to human health.

In August 2024, the National Toxicology Program published a report linking fluoride exposure to neurotoxic effects in children, after public health officials tried for years to block its publication and water down its conclusions.

Recent epidemiological studies in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. showed significant associations between higher fluoride exposure and worse neurocognitive outcomes for children — including at the 0.7 mg/L levels.

A meta-analysis published in January showed that fluoride exposure was associated with significant reductions in IQ scores in children.

Major medical associations and public health agencies — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the CDC — have continued to support adding fluoride to drinking water, claiming it helps prevent cavities.

However, in addition to the growing body of research showing fluoride’s risks to children’s health, a second body of research shows that water fluoridation doesn’t provide the significant benefits the pro-fluoridation lobbyists claim.

A Cochrane Review published in October 2024 found that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.

Kennedy’s announcement signaled that in light of current science, the CDC may change its long-held position that adding fluoride to water to prevent cavities is safe and effective.

Connett said that if the CDC stops recommending water fluoridation nationally, the move would be “big.”

“The EPA has historically been very deferential to HHS when it comes to fluoride regulations and policy, so for the CDC to stop recommending fluoridation would be very significant for future EPA actions.”

CDC’s water fluoridation recommendations are widely followed but not mandatory. State and local governments decide whether to add fluoride to water and, if so, how much — as long as it doesn’t exceed a maximum set by the EPA.

Just over 200 million Americans drink fluoridated water, according to the CDC. However, since Chen’s verdict last year, numerous cities, counties and states across the country have stopped fluoridating their water or are debating rule changes that would end fluoridation.

[…]

Via https://tdefender.substack.com/p/epa-review-health-risks-water-fluoridation-rfk-jr-cdc-stop-recommending

Red Light Therapy: Miracle Medicine

By Mark Sloan

EndAllDisease (2018)

Book Review

Greeks and Romans were aware that exposure to colored light had health benefits. As of January 2018 when this book was published, there were 50,000 published studies on light. The near-infrared spectrum is most effective in healing. Most commercial red light generators produce both red and near-infrared light.

According to Sloan, there are 10 most important chronic health conditions benefiting from red and near-infrared treatment:

1. Melting belly fat and increasing muscle mass – studies adding near-infrared light therapy to an exercise program found the group using both experienced 20% or greater weight loss. Some studies showed weight loss with near-infrared light therapy alone.
2. Accelerated wound healing – near-infrared light therapy.
3. Increased bone density – red and near-infrared light therapy.
4. Increased testosterone levels – red and near-infrared light therapy.
5. Enhanced brain function – near-infrared light therapy.
6. Reduction/elimination anxiety and depression – red and near-infrared light therapy.
7. Pain relief – red and near-infrared light therapy
8. Acne – red light only
9. Regrowing hair – red and near-infrared light therapy
10. Arthritis – red and near-infrared light therapy

Sloan has a special interest in studies about the effect of red/near-infrared light in cancer, which he stresses is not a genetically-linked illness nor an invasive organism as the Big Pharma-dominated Western medical establishment makes out.

Over 100 years ago, Nobel Prize-winning researcher Dr Otto Warburg discovered that a cancer cell is a cell with damaged mitochondria, ie a metabolically defective cell in need of repair. Warburg won the Nobel Prize after discovering cytochrome oxidase, a crucial enzyme in the last step of oxidative phosphorylation in 1926. Warburg also discovered that he was able to turn a healthy cell into a cancer cell by inhibiting phosphorylation.

Specific toxins that inhibit oxydative phosphorylation include: chemotherapy, cyanide,
phosphide compounds, estrogen, serotonin, aphlatoxin, ultraviolet B radiation, xrays, nitric oxide and unsaturated fatty acids.

One of the main therapeutic effects of red and near-infrared light is to unbind nitric oxide, one of the main cytochrome oxidase inhibitors. This means red and near-infrared light also increase ATP (the cells main energy carrier), cell oxygenation, blood flow and CO2 concentrations, while decreasing stress hormones, lactic acid, inflammation and free radicals. Studies show this effect is enhanced when combined with Methylene Blue (see Methylene Blue: Miracle Drug for Cancer, Autism, Depression, Pain, Ebola and Much Much More).

Unlike most Western medications, red light therapy has virtually no side effects and is approved by the FDA for a number of indications.

Stocks Are Irrelevant Until Market Manipulation Ends

Zero Hedge

This past week after Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcements the Dow Jones Index plunged by around 4000 points and the global panic was palpable. Social media was rife with nervous naysayers on both sides of the aisle – The leftists are panicking but also cheering because they think crashing markets will turn into public support for the woke commie brigade.  A contingent of conservatives are panicking too, but I’ll get to that in a moment…

My response? Finally this farce of a market is facing a correction and smacking people in the face with five fingers of reality! I applaud the event because it’s something that needed to happen years ago. Most skeptics are wrong on the tariff issue, mainly because they think the stock market matters. It doesn’t.  People are also terrified of tariffs because they think globalism matters. It doesn’t.

This position might upset those who are heavily invested right now, but I would argue they are missing the macro picture and they need to look at the situation from a position of inevitability.  Tariffs and the end of globalism are a necessary outcome.  Here’s why we shouldn’t fear the Reaper…

The narrative on social media (from critics on both sides) is that Trump is unwittingly destroying the US economy to spite foreign trading partners because they’re getting more out of us than we’re getting out of them. I can’t speak to Trump’s motives because I’m not a psychic, but I can say that it’s impossible for Trump to destroy the economy. Why? Because it was already destroyed over the past two decades (some would argue longer) by the Federal Reserve and previous administrations.

The economy was in dire straits when Biden left office.  Nothing has really changed except stocks are no longer being propped up artificially (we’ll see how the Fed reacts).

In every instance since the crash of 2008 when the markets have shifted into correction territory, the central bank has stepped in to prevent a natural reversal. They print tens of trillions of dollars in fiat from thin air and then pump it into banks and international corporations in order to kick the can down the road for a little while longer.

The Dow Jones gained over 15,000 points in less than four years after the initial covid crash in 2020 (this is unheard of in a normal economy). ALL of these gains are connected directly to stimulus programs and subsequent inflation initiated by the Federal Reserve (cycled through the Yen carry trade and stock buybacks, among other pathways). They have been manipulating stocks into a condition of perpetual inflationary gains – But a reckoning has arrived in the shape of stagflation and it’s killing America slowly.

If stocks cannot survive without a constant flow of recycled fiat to prop them up, then the markets are not real. I suggest that the Dow Jones needs to undergo at least another 10,000 points in decline before valuations are grounded in some kind of reality, and that’s being generous. Some deflation is necessary to bring back affordability.

An economy based on inflation, illusion and comfortable ignorance is a nuclear bomb waiting to explode. There are many conservatives that understand this problem well, but even some of them are freaking out today because they also prefer to avoid facing the consequences of the farce being exposed.

They should know better.

I’ve been hearing Republican and Libertarian commentators decry the “Everything Bubble” for a long time, but many of these people cling like barnacles to the fantasy that there’s a silver bullet solution. Crypto is going to save us (no it’s not). Winning elections is going to save us (no it’s not). Revolution is going to save us (not in the short term). Gold is going to save us (again, not in the short term). There is no scenario in which we can avoid the pain of a financial reformation. There is no silver bullet solution, so stop waiting around for one to materialize.

Stocks Are Not An Indicator Of Economic Health

Stocks are not a leading indicator of economic health and it’s hard to find an instance when a crash has ever been the direct cause of a crisis rather than a symptom of something bigger. Stocks are, in fact, a trailing indicator of problems that should have been noticed long ago.

In nearly every major stock crash in modern history (including the crash of 1929) there were sufficient signs that the economy was in decay, but those signs were dismissed. If you’ve been waiting for a crash to tell you that it’s time to take a closer examination of our nation’s financial health then you’ve been blind.

Most People Don’t Care About The Markets

The wealthiest 10% of Americans own 93% of all stocks.  Only 21% of American families own any shares directly. Another 40% own at least some shares indirectly through retirement programs, but their holdings are tiny – Nearly insignificant. Who actually cares about stocks?  The vast majority of the populace does not.  They might see stock indexes as an indicator of economic stability (this is an incorrect assumption), but they aren’t scrambling to adjust their portfolios right now.

In terms of market players, global corporations and banks benefit most from government and central bank interference in equities, not Joe Dirt or Jane Dirt just scraping by month-to-month, hoping for a modest house and a tiny stipend in a 401K.  Is this a terrible indictment of “capitalism” and free markets? No. My point is that most of the people freaking out about tariffs and the markets are generally people who have large investments, or a political agenda.

There are those that claim that “all of us” should care about stocks because when companies lose value in their shares they end up firing employees in order to make up the difference. This argument presumes that these companies weren’t going to do that anyway.  Deflation is not the only bogeyman out there. Inflation also leads to layoffs as we’ve been seeing the past few years. Artificially inflated stocks are NOT a shield against mass job losses.

Tariffs Are Not A Tax On The Citizenry, They’re A Tax On Global Corporations

I’m getting a little tired of people constantly defending international conglomerates as if they are victims. On the libertarian side of things there are number of well meaning skeptics that suggest tariffs are “unconstitutional” because they symbolize taxation without representation. This is incorrect. Tariffs are not a tax on the public. They are not a tax on foreign economies. They are a tax on global corporations and the foreign goods they import.

As I noted last month in my article ‘Trade War: Tariffs Are Needed To Defeat Globalism But They Come With A Cost’, the Libertarian side of the liberty movement tends to worship corporations and globalism as the ultimate expression of free markets. Somewhere along the line they were conned.

Corporations are socialist constructs that only exist with government charter and special protections. The market bailouts are a perfect example of how corporations that should have been allowed to fail were kept alive because of their partnership with the government.

Frankly, I do not care that they’re getting taxed for importing foreign goods and exporting American jobs. That’s a good thing. If they want to void the tax, all they have to do is bring manufacturing and jobs back to the US. It’s not as if they don’t have options.

Americans can also buy from smaller locally sourced producers to avoid price hikes. Suddenly, the playing field in which international companies get an unfair advantage is a little more level and competition returns. THAT’S a free market, as opposed to what we have today.

Globalism Is Not Inevitable

Tariffs might seem like a crude weapon against the machinations of globalism – As so many skeptics repeat like parrots: “Trump is using an ax when he should be using a scalpel…Squawk!!”.

This isn’t about Trump, so let’s set him aside for a moment. Instead, consider what globalism really is: A system which pretends to benefit humanity while quietly bleeding as much wealth as it can from the middle class.  It then places that cash in the coffers of a tiny percentage of elites. Globalism is a wealth and property transfer machine.

The direct result is a historic wealth gap that has put 30% of all cash in the hands of 1% of the population. The bottom 50% of the populace holds a laughable 2.6% of global wealth, and the problem is only getting worse.

In terms of “free trade” and the supply chain, interdependency makes all nations weak by forcing them to rely on other countries for key resources and base necessities. They’ve set up a system which makes it hard to walk away. Freedom from globalism means isolation from preestablished supply chains.

For those that say tariffs are an attack on our allies and trading partners, this is foolish. First, a lot of these countries are NOT our allies. Europe in particular is becoming more totalitarian by the day, throwing people in jail for online speech and political opponents in jail for wanting to stop mass immigration. Why should we be allies or trading partners with people who would happily destroy every value we hold dear?

Furthermore, why has the American consumer become the cash cow for the rest of the world? Why are other countries so reliant on us to buy their products? The narrative is that Americans MUST continue to consume outside exports and remain dutiful pay-pigs because if we don’t that means we’re declaring war?  Yeah, I think not.

Finally, if tariffs don’t work or they’re a destructive practice, then why do so many countries place tariffs on American goods? They’re allowed to enforce a trade balance, but we’re not?

Globalism Is A Cancer And It Must Be Allowed To Die

What critics are truly afraid of is the death of globalism. Not because they particularly adore the ideology; a lot of them hate globalism and what it represents. Rather, they are afraid because they’re addicted to the meager comfort that the system provides and they know that independence (detoxification) comes with pain.

It means hard work and sacrifice, but also living through a generational struggle that asks a lot of us while there’s no guarantee we’ll ever see any benefits in our lifetime. Americans today are increasingly less concerned with the world their children might inherit. They only seem to care about their immediate happiness. Some Americans would sacrifice everything including their freedoms just to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable crisis event.

If stock markets don’t matter, guess what? Your happiness REALLY doesn’t matter.

This one is for the survival of the species, folks.  Eventually the wave we’re coasting on is going to crash to the shore. Globalism is a cancer on our world. Either we step up and kill it or we will suffer more each decade while our children grow up with no inkling of what prosperity means.

Yes, Conservatives Will Be Blamed – News Flash: They Were Going To Blame Us Anyway

Conservatives and liberty advocates will be blamed for any economic instability that results from Trump’s economic policies. I’ve been warning about this FOR YEARS. I warned about it at the beginning of Trump’s first term back in 2016. I said that Trump will be called the “next Herbert Hoover”, that his tariffs would be tied to chaos in markets and probably the dollar. I warned that, by extension, all conservatives will be scapegoats for a crisis that the globalists actually created.

Back then I believed that the liberty movement’s most important job was to ensure that blame is placed on the central banks, international corporations and NGOs.  Now, I’m not so sure that optics matter anymore.  The establishment is going to blame us regardless and people will believe them or disagree with them based purely on political allegiance, not on facts. If the end result is the death of globalism then it’s worth the risk.

There will be uncertainty and the enemy will try to take advantage of the crisis and public fear to promote their one world system and a one world digital currency.  This simply means they’ll have to be removed from the equation before they can use the situation to take more power.  Interpret that however you like.

Of course, maybe all of this is premature. The majority of foreign governments are already rushing to the negotiating table to offer more beneficial trade policies. Maybe Trump’s tariffs will be short lived, the panic will be fleeting and manufacturing will flourish in America again.  It’s certainly possible, but again, not without some pain in the short term.

My suspicion is that the tariff issue is just one of many “crisis” scenarios that will play out over the next few years. And the more globalism is derailed the more the elites will try to retaliate. We have to be willing to endure it and press forward.  Even if tariffs succeed in bringing back domestic production, the global order will still be disrupted dramatically in the process.  We can shriek in fear over it, or, we can view it as an opportunity to cleanse America and the world of a parasitic system that has been plaguing us for decades.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/tariff-freak-out-why-so-many-people-cling-cancer-globalism