Think of all the surgeries, especially your own, since 1890 where only one layer was used. It is a wonder there is anyone left alive.
130 years later the CDC and WHO still can’t figure out how to use a surgical mask(s). The CDC and it’s minions look more ridiculous every day.
Testing anything living or dead for COVID, to jack up the fear factor, has exposed the incompetence these organizations. They must do something to look like they are doing something besides making a bad situation worse.
Speaking of testing car crash and bus fatalities…one wonders what one would discover if one were tested for staphylococcus, TB, meningitis or any latent malcontent lying in wait inside the mouth or wherever the swab is taken.
Wikipedia would have to expand it’s definition of “co-morbidity”.
The CDC writes legislation and provides the enforcers.
“According to CNN, the CDC is demanding that people wear two masks when on public transport. Failure to comply could result in prosecution according to the news report. Is there any science behind it? Dr. Fauci surprisingly provides the answer. Also today: lockdown protests grow in Europe, lockdowns and cancer treatment, and Governor DeSantis shows how it’s done.”
Omidyar, whose Omidyar Network funds AELP, also funds the Democracy Fund which is now part of Omidyar Group (1). The Democracy Fund, in turn, together with the Knight Foundation, Quadrivium, the McArthur Foundation and Luminate (also funded by Omidyar) fund Democracy Works (2). Omidyar also funds Democracy Fund Voice, which in turn contributes to Defending Democracy Together (3). Then there is Healthy Democracy which is funded by the Democracy Fund, Silicon Valley Community Foundation (which also receives money from Democracy Fund) (4) and the Ford Family Foundation. The Omidyar Network also co-funds New Public by Civic Signals, along with the Knight Foundation, One Project, the National Conference on Citizenship and the University of Texas at Austin, Centre for Media Engagement. Of course, the University of Texas at Austin, Centre for Media Engagement is also funded by the Omidyar Network, the Democracy Fund (funded by Omidyar), the Knight Foundation, Robert McCormick Foundation, and Google. To name just a few others, the Ada Lovelace Institute also receives funding from Luminate, the Wellcome Trust and Nuffield Foundation, while TicTec, a MySociety event about ‘civic tech’, is funded by Facebook, Luminate and Google, among others.
As the founder and operator of a pro-democracy civil-society organisation, I’ve often been astounded at calls to give NGOs a greater say in rule-making, more visibility during negotiations and privileged access to decision-makers. Because I know what few people do – that small, member-driven, self-funded NGOs are relatively rare.
Instead, the kind of organisation that tends to drive the political agenda is generally billionaire (or at least multimillionaire) funded. The most well-known examples here are groups funded by conservatives like the Koch brothers and large companies like ExxonMobil. I had naively assumed that others criticised these organisations for the same reasons I did – because their actions undermined the principle of democratic equality by giving the impression that their ideas enjoyed far more backing than they did.
However, I stand corrected.
A few months ago, I suffered a rare relapse into naivety and decided that it was about time I got on to the NGO ‘funding’ gravy train. Apparently, floods of money were out there waiting for me in the democracy world. Meanwhile, for incomprehensible reasons, I was stubbornly insisting on behaving like some old-fashioned grandmother, cackling things like, ‘In my day, we used to go around with a tin can collecting for Amnesty International at Christmas! We met in the basement of a pub and everyone paid for their own beer!’
People were so baffled at this attitude that I began to doubt myself and look into how to get funding for projects in the democracy space. And because I thought it would be a good idea to be organised about it, I made a database.
That turned out to be a good idea, because it revealed the influence exerted by a wealthy few over civil society. To illustrate this, I am going to show how just a tiny fraction of a small slice of one funding network starts, but definitely does not end, with eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar.
I should stress that I have no particular axe to grind against Omidyar, who has supported things I whole-heartedly approve of, like the Intercept under Glenn Greenwald. I also don’t believe that Omidyar is the source of any kind of unique evil or that he is up to anything other wealthy people aren’t. I merely picked him as my starting point to illustrate the generalities of the modern NGO-industrial complex, which includes an end-to-end web of political financing, of which Omidyar is merely a part.
Omidyar provides funding for, among many other things, the American Economic Liberties Project. AELP views itself as a check on the influence of big business on politics. According to its website: ‘All across society, monopolistic corporations govern much of our economic lives and exert extraordinary influence over our democracy.’
According to a typically fawning article about the AELP, during one meeting:
‘the conversation turned to a report the group was producing: a series of graphics showing that different brands of a certain product – or coffee – were, in fact, owned by a small number of conglomerates. The graphics represented the group’s hope that people will understand how concentration affects their lives – and be moved to do something about it. [To which AELP’s executive director Sarah Miller said:] “Let’s just wonder at it for a minute.”’
And that is exactly what we’re going to do here: just wonder at the concentration of power behind a bazillion different brand names and hope people understand how it affects their lives.
2020 saw 14% more deaths than average, last year in England & Wales and that amounted to seventy-five thousand extra deaths. We here use the Office of National statistics figures, as it gives total weekly deaths, plus also for comparison an average value of corresponding weekly deaths over the previous five years.[1]
That compares with the figure of ninety thousand deaths for the entire United Kingdom, due allegedly to covid-19.
We here ask and answer the question, what caused that excess of deaths? The answer will not be certain, but will be the simplest possible explanation. By Occam’s razor we are obliged to take it.
For the first quarter of last year, deaths in England and Wales were down: for whatever reason, overall weekly mortality was 3% below the yearly average. Then around the spring equinox on March 23rd Lockdown was announced and suddenly, deaths surged right up so that thousands of extra deaths started happening week after week. That continued all through April and May and then finally, in the first week of June Britons were allowed out again: with relief we could walk the streets and parks, cafes and pubs opened up again.
Those months of Lockdown saw fifty-nine thousand excess deaths (see graph). That comes from counting the eleven weeks ending 27 March to the 5th June, as being the lockdown period.
The question arises as to what caused them? Could it have been, for example, the shock? The month of April averaged ninety percent more deaths than usual! Then May was not quite so bad, as folk got used to the grim new reality.
In the weeks after the Lockdown i.e. after the first week of June the whole excess of deaths suddenly vanished. Over the next four months deaths remained exactly average compared to previous years.
The graph shows this distinct, three-stage process.
OBNS data for weeks ending
3rd Jan to 20th March
12 weeks
138,916
143,738
-4,822
-3%
27 March to 5 June
11 weeks
168,396
109,703
+58,693
+54%
LOCKDOWN
12 June to 9 Oct
18 weeks
166,392
165,808
+584
0%
These figures suggest that it is the lockdown itself and not any virus, that caused the excess deaths.
We’re here reminded of a careful survey done last May which found that, in all countries with reliable death-figures, their increase in mortality began after the lockdown was imposed and not before. There is a very simple difference between cause and effect: the cause comes first, before the effect!
A second Lockdown was imposed over the month of November. This lacked the same terror and shock value of the first and so only reached a net 18% excess of mortality: for the five weeks from week ending 6 November to that of 4th December there were nine thousand excess deaths, compared to the seasonal average.
Figure: weekly data from the Office of National Statistics for 2020, comparing total mortality per week with an estimated average from the previous five years.
After the autumn equinox as the nights grew longer the government again started to terrorise the population with talk of the ‘dark winter’ to come. Somehow they knew that a ‘second wave’ was coming, and so there would have to be a ‘second lockdown’ and no Christmas. Here’s what I said in a podcast on 20th October:
They are trying to resuscitate another big scare, trying to claim there is a second wave … come this autumn, they have started drumming up fear again, they have imposed these levels of Lockdown which are rather terrifying. A lot of stress they are putting on people, I’ve been wondering, are the deaths going to go up again like last time?
Did that happen? The figures show as before a surge around the time of the lockdown and just before it, however this time it did not vanish after the lockdown. That’s because there was not really any easing up. On the contrary yet more draconian measures were announced, with the unheard-of measure of police stopping people walking outdoors, to ask them if they had good reason to be out of their house? Meeting friends was forbidden, etc. That pressure pushed up the mortality even more and we here especially note the ‘Christmas week’ ending 25th December, with a whopping 45% excess mortality. That is not a merry Christmas, it’s an extra three and a half thousand people popping off (as compared to previous years) in a week, caused presumably by shock and despair of Xmas being cancelled. The week after that it was still very high, 26% excess, as folk faced the bleak new year.
It helps to express that excess mortality as overall monthly means, for the last few months of 2020. Thus taking each month as a whole and selecting four weeks of data for each month:
September from weeks ending
11 Sept to 2 Oct.
+4%
October
9 Oct to 30th Oct
+7%
November
6 Nov to 27 Nov
+18%
December
4 Dec to 1st Jan
+21%
Slowly the excess deaths (comparing, as before, with previous years) have increased through the autumn and winter. The month of December had ten thousand extra deaths. Should one take the government’s view, that these deaths were caused by the CV19 virus, and that the increasingly severe restrictions were a necessary response to ‘contain’ the spread of this virus? A simpler hypothesis would be that there is no virus killing people, whereas the stress of bankruptcy, solitude, loneliness, etc. imposed by government edicts really has been killing people. Thus for example ‘tier 4’ was announced on 19th December for large parts of England and that resulted in the highest mortality for the week following. That knockout blow to everyone’s Christmas – never banned since the days of Oliver Cromwell – had the deep impact, driving up the mortality index.
Overall it would appear to be the government’s lockdown policy that has been killing people and not some new disease. Stress, loneliness, fear and despair have been causing the excess of deaths: together with emptying out of hospitals, especially of old folk and cancellation of normal services because of the ‘pandemic.’ If the government knows this, then it is a population-reduction program.
A recent US CDC report agreed with the approach we’ve here taken, that the significance of CV19 can only be appreciated in terms of total mortality. Published on the John Hopkins University website on 22nd November (but soon removed), it endorses the view that no virus is killing people, any more than normal flu, whereas deaths from other causes are being re-classified as Covid19:
According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States…
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below , the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
Base on this analysis, the best way to end the ongoing mass-killing of elderly Britons would be to terminate the lockdowns and resume normal life. As Dr Simone Gold (of Frontline Doctors ) well explained, CV19 is just ‘killing’ elderly people who were about to die anyhow. It cannot be shown that ‘having’ CV19 i.e. testing PCR-‘positive’ contributed to shortening their life. So that isn’t a causal connection, i.e. the alleged illness has not ‘caused’ their death. That’s why the age-distribution of CV-19 is indistinguishable from that of the normal population.
The average age of death in England & Wales is 81.5 years, while the average age of ‘Covid-19 fatalities’ is 82.4 years (ONS data). What this tells us is very simple: the disease does not exist.
The concept of PCR ‘testing’ has always been fraudulent. The so-called PCR ‘test’ multiplies up fragments of nucleotide-chains and the number of ‘positive’ cases depends on the multiplication factor used as well as how many persons are tested. There will never come a time when the virus is ‘cured’ or ‘solved’ or whatever people imagine the government is trying to do (if it knows!), such that the PCR test ceases to generate ‘positive’ tests. No-one will ever give you evidence that people who test ‘positive’ get ill more often than others. Is there an aim of government policy, aside from terrorising the populace? Is it to kill the virus? That can never happen because the virus isn’t alive.
he World Health Organization has now backtracked over the PCR ‘test’, saying (January 13th) it is merely a diagnostic tool that can assist. It now advises –
Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
In other words, a single PCR test should not be used for diagnosing Sars-Cov-2 infection. It’s merely a guide!
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
So we finally have it that the PCR cannot be relied upon a diagnostic test. Which is exactly what its inventor Kary Mullis said. So forget all of the figures you’ve heard about ‘cases’ and ‘covid deaths’ – they cannot be relied upon.
If one did want to believe there was a disease associated with this virus, then surely we’d agree with Dr Alexander Myasnikov, appointed last year as Russia’s chief medical advisor. In an interview he explained how the world had greatly over-reacted to the CV19 story and death numbers in the West were greatly over-counted. He added:
“It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality.”
Thus the former Chief Medical Officer of Ontario has recently challenged his government’s policy saying, “We’re Being Locked-down for an Infection Fatality Rate of Less than 0.2%?” and the lockdown is not “supported by strong science.” He here means, that for those who test PCR-positive one in five hundred will die. The time-period here involved needs to be defined, eg it could be one month: we all die, and given the median age of alleged-CV19 deaths is around 80 that could well be a normal rate of mortality – especially if they are PCR-testing everyone admitted to hospitals.
Last November a Cornish nurse went public, saying the hospital wards had been empty over months when it was claimed they were overflowing. She said whenever they had flu patients they were classified as Covid: ‘flu and Covid cases are now recorded as ‘the same thing’ on death certificates.’ . That wouldn’t be necessary if the disease really existed. Not surprisingly, the flu this winter has mysteriously vanished. One woman who walked round her local hospital filming its empty wards was arrested by police entering her home the next day.
The virus itself cannot be shown to exist, by which we mean that it cannot be reliably differentiated from all the other normal coronaviruses, that have been with us since time began. It has never been isolated, let’s be clear about that. Last April an EU science department admitted:
“No virus isolates with a quantified amount of the SARS-CoV-2 are currently available …“
And the same thing was echoed a few months later by the US Centre for Disease Control:
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”[2]
In other words, nobody can hold a test-tube or petri-dish and say, ‘Here is COVID-19.’ Published gene-sequences of the alleged virus are mere hypothetic constructs. Yes some disease broke out in Wuhan in November 2019 and yes the Chinese authorities published a gene-sequence allegedly of it, but so what?
Fear Porn Promotion
The government needs your fear. It wants your attention but knows that it has no prospect of improving your life in any way. Thus we have a health minister who knows nothing about health or well-being: he can get your attention by telling you that you won’t be able to fly without a vaccine. They need your fear, and in the last century the government was able to arouse your fear by threatening to press the nuclear button. That doesn’t work any more. The UK govts latest exercise in fear-porn advises citizens to behave as if they are ill. (‘Act like you’ve got it’) Yes, that sounds just like how to promote health.
It further promotes the diabolical idea that perfectly healthy persons can transmit disease (‘anyone can spread it’). Here one could quote the WHO expert Dr Maria van Kerkhove: ‘From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onwards to a secondary individual. Its very rare.’ (Head of the WHO Emerging disease and zoonosis unit at a news briefing from the UN agency’s headquarters at Geneva, 6.6.20). Admittedly she was pressured to backpedal and retract, but she did say it.[3]
In the words of the Daily Mail, ‘Terrifying new TV ads’ are being promoted by the Government (23 Jan 2021) The above fear-porn promotion is through the US media agency Omnigov, who signed a 110 million Lockdown advertising deal – on March 2nd, three weeks before the Lockdown.
The journalist Neil Clark commented[4] on ‘the report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper that the UK government struck a deal worth £119m with an American advertising company, OMD Group, urging people to ‘Stay Home, Stay Safe’ a full three weeks before Boris Johnson ordered a lockdown. Think about what this means.’ That meme ‘Stay home Stay safe’ would have been blueprinted the previous year at the US ‘Event 201’ by Bill Gates et. al. Fear blocks out rational, coherent thought which is why the government needs it.
People may be forgetting how debilitating winter flu can be and how it can last for weeks. Now they want to call it COVID. Let’s here support Prof. Dolores Cahill, who has been looking at the sequencing of PCR testing. In Ireland it was found that of fifteen hundred PCR tests ‘all of them were influenza A and B, not one of them were SARS-COV2.’ Her group will be seeking legal action where the tests come back as influenza rather than the specific CV19 and doctors can be sued for medical negligence. (Corbett Report, 23 mins) That sounds like a promising way of dealing with this phantomic virus.
‘Is this an epidemic of despair?’ asked that perceptive commentator Peter Hitchins. Scientists are trained not to take notice of emotions and instead to look for things, objects as causative agents, whereas here we agree with Peter Hitchens that the negative soul-conditions of the populace caused by government policies are leading to death. Hitchens’ article quotes the distinguished professor of medical microbiology, Sucharit Bhakdi:
‘He said that older people had the right to make efforts to stay fit, active, busy and healthy. But he warned that the shutdown of society would condemn them to early death by preventing this.
‘Social contacts and social events, theatre and music, travel and holiday recreation, sports and hobbies, all help to prolong their stay on earth. The life expectancy of millions is being shortened.’
In a prediction that has turned out to be terribly accurate, he added: ‘The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences for medical care are profound. Already services to patients who are in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.’
That is what is killing people, there is no other pandemic.
We’re here concerned with UK, however for comparison let’s end with a graph showing the US weekly mortality rate over 2020, showing the very same effect.
The graph shown an excess of 280k deaths above normal-expected levels, following the lockdown. The web-page hosting this graph states ‘The large spike in deaths in April 2020 corresponds to the coronavirus outbreak.’ I’m here suggesting a different view.
By Nick Kollerstrom, PhD, author of The Great British coronavirus Hoax, A Sceptics view (banned by Amazon.)
Notes
[1] Using fifty-two weeks i.e. 364 days of the year, from the week ending 3rd January 2020 to that of 1st January 2021, the ONS compares a week in 2020 with the average value for 2015-9.
[2] CDC ‘2019-Novel Coronavirus Real-Time PCR Diagnostic Panel performance characteristics’ p.39, 13.7.20. This has been scrubbed from the Web, but see BMJ response to it.
[3] A huge Chinese study of ten million around Wuhan between May and June showed ‘no evidence that positive cases without symptoms spread the disease’: Nature 20.11.20 ‘Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening’.
[4] RT ‘Covid-19 reverse psychology’ by Neil Clarke, 28.10.20, deleted but preserved on the Hugo Talks video
Here we have it. They are going after EVERYONE who has a gun or ammunition. They are deeply concerned about a revolution and they want to know every person who has a gun or ammunition. The object of this bill will be to identify every person who has a gun. They will be able to revoke a license and confiscate the gun under rules to be created by the Attorney General. Biden swore he would end the NRA. He was not joking. Like a diverse license, once they create this federal license, they effectively limit the Second Amendment claiming if you obey all their regulations which they can change at any time, then you have that right. But all such rights are eliminated whenever they say so.
922(dd)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both
‘‘(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(2) shall be fined not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000, imprisoned not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or both.’’
Even if you are a libertarian, who rejects violence in any form, you are subject to the new view that any opposition to the state and its dominant ideology is a form of terrorism.
In these dark days thousands of US military troops occupying Washington DC seem normal. But it is totally insane
There was an old saying in communist Hungary, a favorite to recite on May Day, where the communist party provided free beer and hot dogs: “The workers’ fist is an iron fist; it strikes where it is needed.”
I spent seven years living in barely post-communist Hungary and – sorry to shock you – some of my great friends and co-workers had been ardent communists who somehow managed to find a golden parachute as the old regime fell and the new “democracy” had settled as the dust after an explosion.
As I wrote on Lew Rockwell earlier this week, the 1989 “fall of communism” was no democratic revolution but a move by the communist nomenklatura (in the case of Hungary the offspring of the communist leadership from 1948, 1956, and even 1918) to ride the zeitgeist to a profitable Hegelian synthesis where they would still hold the reins but be recognized by the “West” (Clinton at the time) as the harbingers of a great pro-West revolution in formerly East Europe.
Christian and anti-communist victims of a half century of US-allied communism in Hungary had no place in the new “anti-communist” Hungary of post-1989. People like my good friend Count István Csáky, whose thousand year old Christian family lost everything when the communist rabble took over in 1948, were no better off after the end of 50 years of official satanism. There was no restoration of the status quo after the end of the anomaly called Marxism-Leninism. But the media never reported this fact so it did not exist. History was whig, it was unending progress toward perfection.
So there was no place in a world that had destroyed Csáky to allow Csáky to exist once the tyranny that had destroyed Csáky had ceased to exist.
“Justice.”
It’s perhaps a downer for those who love mythology, but reality seldom lends itself to the tidy pronouncements of the mainstream media and the current vapid authors of popular history.
Cut to the present:
House Speaker Pelosi has in the fashion of Mátyás Rákosi decided that the other political party is not just an ideological or philosophical competitor, but the epitome of the “enemy within,” that must be vanquished and sent to the gulag.
If you oppose the Biden/Pelosi regime you are an insurrectionist who needs prison time.
Even if you are a libertarian, who rejects violence in any form, you are subject to the new view that any opposition to the state and its dominant ideology is a form of terrorism.
In these dark days thousands of US military troops occupying Washington DC seem normal. But it is totally insane
What will we do when everything we believe has become outlawed? When peaceful and intellectual opposition to the tyranny of the current regime is punishable by total cancellation, which technology has guaranteed we are nullified? Like Csáky will we just cease to exist for a half century, or will we start to assert our truths as the system implodes? Please Donate Now! Thank you for your support!
Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams Executive Director Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Banking as we know it, for example, is finished… thanks to digital technology.
[Editor’s Note: Today we continue our short series of articles from Simon Black, the Founder of SovereignMan.com which specializes in crafting a Plan B to protect your freedom and wealth. Enjoy!] January 30, 2021Bahia Beach, Puerto Rico History shows that in any episode of great turmoil, there are always winners and losers. I learned that by taking some basic, sensible steps, it’s possible to drastically eliminate my exposure to the risks and avoid being a loser. So no matter what happens or how crazy things get, I know I’ll be OK. For years I’ve called this my “Plan B”. I know I won’t be worse off for being able to grow my own organic food, holding some savings in a well-capitalized bank outside of my home government’s jurisdiction, or keeping some physical gold and cash. Having another passport gives me more freedom to live, work, and travel. Legally reducing my tax burden helps me vote my conscience with my dollars and put my money where my mouth is. I’ve learned that all of these steps make sense no matter what happens. Or doesn’t happen. But should the negative trend in freedom and global finance get worse, I know I’ll be OK. This confidence has allowed me to focus on all the incredible opportunities I’ve seen. Institutions that have existed for centuries are now being disrupted by digital technology. Banking as we know it, for example, is finished… thanks to digital technology. The digital age is even changing the way we organize ourselves as a society. Geography no longer matters, and nearly everything is global. A billion people are rising into the middle class in Asia and Africa. Countries are emerging from war and isolation. Wealth and power are shifting. These extraordinary changes bring extraordinary opportunity. So as crazy as things are, I think this is an incredibly exciting time to be alive. I’m grateful to be active in a time that future scholars will likely regard as one of the most tumultuous and revolutionary in history. And I’m grateful for having started the philosophical journey that began all the way back in 2003. Tomorrow, I’m going to share with you how you can take back control of your life and thrive in a world of chaos. To your freedom and prosperity,Simon BlackFounder, SovereignMan.com
Simon BlackFounder, 
