I wrote about this extensively on February, 2011. People forget things very quickly, also the Legacy American Media rarely reports on such things. I'll just call them the LAM (Legacy American Media) and then there's The Silence of The LAMs. That's right, I'm coining the phrase, you saw it here first... France was pushing for a global currency even back in 2011.

France, as current head of the Group of 20 countries, will help the transition to a global financial system based on 'several international currencies', French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said today.

Lagarde, speaking ahead of a G20 finance ministers meeting in Paris on Friday and Saturday, said the world had to move on from the 'non-monetary system' it now has to one 'based on several international currencies'.

Accordingly, France wants to see less need for countries, especially the emerging economies, to accumulate huge foreign reserves, she said.

At the same time, international capital flows should be better regulated and the role of the Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund should be reinforced by the inclusion of China's yuan in the system.

China, whose booming economy now ranks second only to the US in size after overtaking Japan, has accumulated massive forex reserves of more than $2.5 trillion on the back of its sustained trade surpluses and foreign fund inflows.

The U.S. Dollar should no longer be the world's reserve currency, and these SDR (Special Drawing Rights) should become the new standard. They are, of course, backed by currencies from a number of countries, China in particular. Now the Biden administration is taking the same approach. The Biden administration is making moves that will weaken the U.S. Dollar on the world stage.

A controversial plan to boost global liquidity means the days of the U.S. dollar being the undisputed king of the international monetary system may be coming to a close, experts told The Epoch Times.

Losing that status could contribute to a serious crisis for the United States involving a dramatic loss of economic purchasing power, a geopolitical realignment and everything associated with those shocks.

The Biden administration-backed International Monetary Fund (IMF) proposal to issue an unprecedented $650 billion U.S. dollars’ worth of new “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) this year alone will also help re-shape the international financial system.

That is more than twice the total amount of SDRs created by the IMF throughout its entire history.

The SDR is a sort of proto-global currency, based on a basket of leading currencies, dubbed an “international reserve asset” by the IMF. Each government receives an amount of SDRs proportional to its stake in the international organization.

The unprecedented new issuance, which has the support of both Beijing and Washington, will contribute to sidelining the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, analysts warned. The Chinese Communist Party is expected to be a leading beneficiary.

It gets even better. You will see here that The Great Reset is not a hoax, it's not something that was dreamed up. These "world leaders" have been openly talking about this for decades. Again, the Legacy American Media has never covered this with any specificity.

Those calls are growing amid the push for a “Great Reset.” The “reset” plan, which would transform everything from business to governance, is being promoted by the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the IMF, the British monarchy and other power centers as a way to improve the world.

Ostensibly aimed at making the world more “green” and “sustainable,” the shift would require a much larger role for the public sector at the national and international level while moving the world away from what remains of the free-market system. Widespread proliferation of new technologies associated with the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” are a critical component of the effort, too.

A restructuring of the international monetary system led by the IMF on the way to the globalization of currency—with the looming SDR issuance as a major step—is likely to play a key role in the global reset as well.

Just as significantly, the developments taking place at the IMF will empower global organizations to channel ever-larger sums of wealth from people in the United States and other major economies into projects selected by those organizations and their member governments.

Powerful global interests, for instance, are pushing to use the new SDR “allocation,” as the issuing of new SDRs is called, to finance everything from mass international COVID vaccinations to policy transformations around the world.

The IMF wants to fund the world by basically pooling money from all over the world, and redistributing wealth. All of this, while simultaneously weakening the U.S. Not just on the world stage, but economically as well. There is nothing good about this plan, so far as the U.S. is concerned. This "Great Reset" is centralizing global power through the IMF, by marginalizing the U.S. Ask yourself, was Biden elected to do this? Did Biden voters really hate Trump so much that they wanted to bring down the country to get him out of office? I think not.

Right now, governments, central banks and businesses around the world keep large amounts of dollars on reserve to settle international transactions. This creates a constant global demand for the dollar.

However, if the dollar were to lose its status to the SDR, the demand for dollars around the world would plummet. The resulting collapse in purchasing power would create an enormous crisis as Americans’ ability to purchase goods and services from abroad was decimated.

The leftists in control of the U.S. government are running us off a cliff. They are doing this while Legacy American Media are ignoring it --on purpose. No American would want this. This is the equivalent of working your whole life to make things better for your children, then, at the last minute, throwing all of your savings away. Nobody would do this willingly, that's why these sorts of stories are not covered by the LAMs. I guarantee that if you asked any Biden voter about SDRs they would not the slightest idea what you were talking about.

It's because of people's blissful ignorance and sense of removed responsibility that we've ended up in this mess. People are too willing to believe that other people actually want to look out for their best interest. While sometimes that's the case, perhaps with people that you know personally, it's rarely the case with people you've never met. It's even more rare when the people you're trusting to protect you have antipathy towards you.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There are many things missing from the public debate. With BLM, Antifa, Critical Race Theory, and any "intersectional social justice movement" there's one very important aspect that is often overlooked. That one particular question that's missing, to me one of the most important questions to ask. How are these "movements" supposed to help, or fix what they claim is a problem in society?

Take BLM for example, they used to have their version of a mission statement on their website. Take a look at what they propose.

It reads, "We this and we that." Notice there's never any mention of how these beliefs are to manifest themselves? BLM says, "Here's a big list of what we believe, but we never get into what we're going to do." BLM says, "We believe 'stuff,' so get in the streets to let people know what you believe!"

It's like a cleaning company that raises awareness of dust. There's lots of dust out there, we should do something about it! Of course, they never talk about step (1). "There's dust" that's it. That's the depth of their argument in total.

Police and oppressors are the problem. We need to get rid of them. Then what? You know, if you ask that question you might be labeled as a racist. Logic and reason are weapons of the oppressor. Kind of like racist math with all of it's absolutes.

Is Seattle really teaching that "math is racist"? Why did parents start to see ideas for math lessons that go far beyond numbers and into questions of identity?

In math, lessons are more theoretical. Seattle's recently released proposal includes questions like, "Where does Power and Oppression show up in our math experiences?" and "How is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression to persist?"

It's not that the formulas and equations taught in current math classes are racist, Castro-Gill said it's about how they're used in daily life.

"Nowhere in this document says that math is inherently racist," she said. "It's how math is used as a tool for oppression."

One example teachers might mention in an ethnic studies math class, she said, is how black voters in the South were given literacy and numeracy tests before they could cast their ballot. Another might be a lesson on ratios that discusses gaps in incarceration rates and how the weight of a type of drug determines the length of a sentence.

"The numbers are objective," she said, "but how we use it is not objective."

This is the same logic that gun control activists use. Guns are bad because people do bad things with them. Math is bad because people do bad things with it. What's the difference? Both arguments ignore the fact that the object(s) in question are inanimate!

There is no logic in either argument. To believe that math is racist, or used as an oppressive tool, is nonsense. These paradoxical beliefs require you to willfully ignore reality.

There is one author that pretty much sums up the issue quite nicely, British author Douglas Murray.

According to Murray, who is gay, one of the “central conundrums” of our time is expressed by people with marginalized identities: You must understand me. You will never understand me.

Murray dubbed these moral strictures as “paradoxical, impossible demands.”

“The inherent willingness to rush towards contradiction” is “not enough to stop this new religion of social justice,” Murray wrote. One reason “why contradiction is not enough is because nothing about the intersectional, social justice movement suggests that it is really interested in solving any of the problems that it claims to be interested in.”

That left Murray with only one possible conclusion: “Their desire is not to heal but to divide, not to placate but to inflame, not to dampen but to burn.”

Douglas Murray nailed it! He pointed out the exact same thing that I've been looking at. Where does any of this lead? It leads nowhere is the best answer. It leads to societal collapse. All of the "intersectional social justice movements" are designed to remove existing power structures, but that's it, that's as far as they go. It's a tool of "revolutionaries" to destabilize a civilization, so that they can take control. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.

What people MUST understand is that there is no reasoning with people who have fallen prey to these belief systems. There is absolutely no point in arguing with people involved with intersectional social justice movements. Those who actually believe that these movements will result in a better society has proven, through their belief, that they lack the ability reason.

That's not to say that violence is the answer. But these types of ideologies CAN NOT be allowed to fester in a society. Intersectional social justice movements are all Marxist in origin and designed to destroy whatever society their followers inhabit.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication, is a document wargaming the possible scenarios that could occur during a pandemic. The paper was written in 2017 and published by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Here is the opening paragraph on the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security webpage, where you can download a copy for yourself.

Updated: the original link to UCF no longer resolves, I searched and it’s gone. This link is through The Internet Archive. There's also a condensed version available here at the University of Central Florida website.

The Center’s SPARS Pandemic exercise narrative comprises a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future. Its purpose is to prompt users, both individually and in discussion with others, to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circumstances in which communication around emergency MCM development, distribution, and uptake takes place. While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions. At the same time, readers have a chance to consider what potential measures implemented in today’s environment might avert comparable communication dilemmas or classes of dilemmas in the future.

While this document doesn't seem too odd at first, there are quite a few aspects of this document that are strangely similar to the way that things have unfolded during the current SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Take a look at the table of contents:

It only gets more interesting after that.

So now you have this medication Kalocivir, which sounds eerily similar to Remdesivir.

They even fake Twitter posts echoing negative sentiments about the Kalocivir treatments.

This part here is the most interesting to me. Once they find out that the virus is much less deadly than originally though, and, "public interest in SPARS had begun to wane". "...the new, lower case fatality rate estimate led the public to grow increasingly hostile toward continued SPARS messaging."

Why would the government then start a public messaging campaign to make people more afraid of something that's not very deadly? What is the point of that? That, I think, is the most important question to ask about this whole scenario. Wouldn't it make more sense to just treat the outlying cases and let herd immunity take care of the rest? That's how it's worked with any other virus outbreak.

As part of this fear campaign, they begin targeting the population with an adds designed to quell doubts about the "approved" forms of treatment. They are also using the help of celebrity endorsements to push the vaccines and or treatments.

They even cover a mock interview in which a former President shows hesitation when asked about her grandson taking the treatment!

Once vaccinations start, there is confusion in the public because the prioritization of those who will first receive the vaccine.

This has to be the strangest part. There is a huge power outage that occurs. Kind of like the one that happened in Texas! But that's most likely coincidental, still odd though.

It goes on to say how Muslims didn't want to participate in the vaccine program because pigs were used in the manufacturing process.

Next it get to where we are right now.

The paper concludes with the following.

After reading this, you have to ask yourself. How much of what's happened in the last year or so was not planned? Maybe not all of it, but some of it definitely seems like it's been well thought out, the outbreak, how it would be handled, how the government needs to have messaging that thwarts opposition to whatever they (government bureaucrats) deem relevant. And what I consider the be the most important aspect. The need to scare people into believing that something which is not that deadly -- is that deadly.

UPDATE: 08-31-21

Now there are people in the FDA who are "stepping down" AKA "retiring" because they have taken issue with what's gone on thus far.

Two of the FDA’s most senior vaccine leaders are exiting from their positions, raising fresh questions about the Biden administration and the way that it’s sidelined the FDA.

Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review and 32-year veteran of the agency, will leave at the end of October, and OVRR deputy director Phil Krause, who’s been at FDA for more than a decade, will leave in November. The news, first reported by BioCentury, is a massive blow to confidence in the agency’s ability to regulate vaccines.

The bombshell announcement comes at a particularly crucial moment, as boosters and children’s shots are being weighed by the regulator. The departures also come as the administration has recently jumped ahead of the FDA’s reviews of booster shots, announcing that they might be available by the week of Sept. 20.

A former senior FDA leader told Endpoints that they’re departing because they’re frustrated that CDC and their ACIP committee are involved in decisions that they think should be up to the FDA. The former FDAer also said he’s heard they’re upset with CBER director Peter Marks for not insisting that those decisions should be kept inside FDA. What finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

FDA’s former acting chief scientist Luciana Borio added on Twitter, “FDA is losing two giants who helped bring us many safe and effective vaccines over decades of public service.”

“These two are the leaders for Biologic (vaccine) review in the US. They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Former BARDA director Rick Bright wrote, weighing in on the news. “Dr. Gruber is much more than the Director. She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-cov-2, many others.”

So there are people stepping down from the FDA because they disagree with approving the shots for children. This was also in the SPARS Pandemic Scenario paper. It goes on to say, "As the investigations grew in intensity, several high-ranking officials at the CDC and FDA were forced to step down and withdraw from government in order to "spend more time with their families." Exhausted employees of these agencies, many of whom worked long hours six or seven days a week throughout the pandemic, simply wanted to put the whole response behind them."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The QR code below links to WindUpRubberFinger.com for easy sharing.

I don't remember hearing about anyone between the ages of 16 and 24 having heart issues, unless they were on drugs of some sort. If someone this young were to have a heart issue, drugs would be the very first thing they would be looking for, when it comes to those who have been vaccinated, they immediately write it off as a coincidence. Does that sound objective to you?

Epoch times covered the fact that the CDC is holding an emergency meeting to address the increased rates of heart illnesses following a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The first portion of the meeting will feature an update on COVID-19 vaccine safety, including myocarditis cases seen after the administration of vaccines built on messenger RNA technology, according to the meeting agenda.

The CDC has so far identified 226 reports in people ages 30 and younger that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of heart inflammation following the shots, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a deputy director at the agency, told the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory group during a virtual meeting. That was out of about 12.2 million who had received a vaccine as of May 31.

While the vast majority of the patients have recovered, 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized, and three are in intensive care units.

Shimabukuro told members that the CDC will continue to evaluate myocarditis following vaccination and assess the benefits and risks of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which both use mRNA technology, ahead of the emergency meeting next week.

“I think the myocarditis is something that needs to be looked at closely because we’re likely seeing the tip of the iceberg,” added Dr. Michael Kurilla, director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

Pfizer said it supports the CDC’s assessment of the heart inflammation cases, noting that “the number of reports is small given the number of doses administered.”

“It is important to understand that a careful assessment of the reports is ongoing and it has not been concluded that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis or pericarditis,” the company told The Epoch Times in an email.

While the general public is told that this is a rare occurrence. It's so damn rare that, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee plans to hold an emergency meeting this month [June, 2021] to discuss the higher than expected reports of heart inflammation in young males following a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines."

Many now believe that the SARS-Cov-2 virus itself was not what caused the majority of severe reactions in people who were infected by the virus. It appears that there's more of an issue with the "spike protein" that the virus uses to attach itself to human cells. The following is just one example.

“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario, in an interview with Alex Pierson last Thursday, in which he warned listeners that his message was “scary.”

“We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin,” Bridle said on the show, which is not easily found in a Google search but went viral on the internet this weekend.

Bridle, a vaccine researcher who was awarded a $230,000 government grant last year for research on COVID vaccine development, said that he and a group of international scientists filed a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency to get access to what’s called the “biodistribution study.”

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” said Bridle. “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting.”

It will be a VERY long time before we can get to the truth on this, because nobody likes being wrong. Just keep in mind that all of these vaccines were released under Emergency Use Authorization, meaning that nobody can sue the manufacturers.

Keep that in mind next time you're asked to take part in any medical procedure.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

While Republicans are happy because the audits in Arizona and Georgia are producing hard proof of widespread fraud, the Leftists are not worried in the least. Why? Because they already have this all planned out.

President* Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the administration’s push for voting rights legislation, he said in a speech Tuesday in Tulsa, Okla.

In a statement following the speech, Harris said she would work with Congress, community and voting rights organizations, and the "private sector" to push voting rights efforts both nationally and in statehouses.

"The work ahead of us is to make voting accessible to all American voters, and to make sure every vote is counted through a free, fair, and transparent process," Harris said in the statement. "This is the work of democracy."

“I hear all of the folks on TV saying why doesn't Biden get this done? Well because Biden only has the majority of effectively four votes in the House and a tie in the Senate. With two members of the Senate who vote more with my Republican friends,” Biden said in a thinly-veiled swipe at Manchin and fellow moderate, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Neither Manchin nor Sinema’s office immediately returned a request for comment.

Democrats have renewed calls to get rid of the filibuster after Republicans last week blocked an independent, bipartisan commission to look into the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

All roads lead to voting law changes on the federal level.

I’ve been saying this from DAY ONE! It’s not as if the Republican legislators in the stolen states didn’t know about the lawsuits and voting law changes brought forth by Democrats –in their own states!

That’s why the audits won’t really matter. The Republican state legislators are just window dressing. Once the leftists pass (H.R. 1 / S.1) it won’t matter. The "For the People Act of 2021" is the left’s cover.

When fraud is found, which it will be, Democrats will say, “All the stuff Republicans are worried about from 2020 IS legal (now)! Why worry about it? It's over. If we held the election today, Biden would win!” That’s exactly where I think they are going with this.

I think I’ve seen one article, maybe two about H.R. 1 and S.1 being peddled by Schumer. They WILL get the "For the People Act of 2021" passed using the nuclear option. And now we are hearing more calls from the left to use the nuclear option. There is no meaningful Republican opposition to the "For the People Act of 2021" either, we know this because of the state legislators. They could have stopped all this before the 2020 election, and they didn't.

It's dangerous to see inaction and assume it's incompetence, the two are very different things. What people need to wake up to is the fact that the American people are being played from both sides. In fact we have been for a very long time. Much longer than I was aware. It's in any politician's interest to allow changes that result in their power being maintained. These are largely NOT people of virtue. Had they been people of virtue, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Democrats, leftists, AND REPUBLICANS have this all planned out, otherwise they wouldn’t have allowed the steal to go through in the sloppy way they did.

The Uni-Party WILL have their day in the sun.

The only question is, for how long?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"