‘We were ordered to “Euthanise” Patients

Now we learn that the hospitals were empty and that the elderly under care were hit with what was essentially a kill med.  For two years, the safest medical advice was to avoid hospitals.

All this machination was pure NAZI and worked to kill off plenty of the vulnerable.  I wonder if the Pension industry contributed at all?

In fact the silence of the whole pension and insurance industry bothers me deeply.

‘We were ordered to “Euthanise” Patients to falsely increase COVID Death Counts while Hospitals were Empty’ claims Whistleblowing NHS Doctor

BY THE EXPOSÉ 

ON AUGUST 30, 2023 

https://expose-news.com/2023/08/30/we-were-told-kill-patients-pandemic/

An NHS whistleblower, who wishes to remain anonymous, has come forward with allegations that the NHS hospitals were not overwhelmed during the COVID-19 pandemic, as was reported by authorities and the mainstream media.

The whistleblower also confirmed that the little care given throughout the pandemic amounted to negligence and that the government and NHS bosses essentially instructed staff to let people die, or in some cases kill them through the ‘End of Life Care’ programme and falsely label the deaths as being due to Covid-19.

This individual referred to as Dr. John, has worked in minor injuries and illness centres as well as in a primary care role throughout the pandemic.

Dr. John claims that he has “seen this mess evolve from the very beginning of the pandemic” and that hospitals were actually extremely quiet and almost empty during the first lockdown.

“I used to see an average of 20 patients per day, that dropped to 1 – 2 patients during the first lockdown. I have even witnessed an elderly lady with horrific broken bones come into the hospital three weeks after her accident as she was too scared of catching coronavirus to visit the hospital sooner. In the end, the pain overcame the fear.

“I have also assessed people with chest pains in their homes who would not go for further assessment as they were so scared of ‘the virus’ they would rather chance a heart attack than the infection or the loneliness of going to the hospital alone.”

NHS statistics certainly back up Dr John’s claims.

We examined the data for A&E attendance in the months of April (Lockdown 1) and November (Lockdown 2) for 2020 and compared this with April and November in 2018 and 2019 which showed A&E attendance during the first lockdown was 57% down on the previous year, and A&E attendance during lockdown 2 was 31% down on the previous year.2018 – April – 1,984,369 attended A&E / November – 2,036,847 attended A&E

2019 – April – 2,112,165 attended A&E / November – 2,143,505 attended A&E

2020 – April – 916,581 attended A&E / November – 1,485,132 attended A&E

This significant drop in attendance suggests that people were too scared to visit the hospital due to the fear propaganda perpetuated in the mainstream media.

Furthermore, Dr. John also describes how changes in care policies have led to patients not receiving proper follow-up care, resulting in negative outcomes for patients and their families.

He states that usual follow-up visits were not done and parents were removing casts from their children’s broken limbs, “I dread to think the state of some of their limbs,”.

He also mentioned that a change in care policies led to one 80+–year-old woman being permanently disabled.

He describes visiting an elderly patient who had only had a single face-to-face physio follow-up and a single follow-up via phone call following a hip operation. He found her in a bedridden state, unable to transfer to a commode, her dignity taken away.

“I recall visiting one patient a female in her 80’s. She’d only had a single face-to-face physio follow-up and a single follow-up via phone call following a hip operation. I found her laid in her mess on incontinence pads, her dignity taken because she was bed bound with a fixed rotated leg, unable to transfer to a commode. Her family were extremely upset”.

The demise of the NHS didn’t just affect Dr John’s patients though, it also affected him personally as he lost a family member to cancer during the alleged pandemic due to not being given the required care.

“He was given 7 years to live with his illness, he lasted just 1 year in the new NHS system.

“I’ve also witnessed the desperation of families witnessing their own relatives dying sooner than they should have due to the lack of professional care that should have been provided. It has been a very sad year in which I have witnessed the demise of the health service.

“I have also seen stroke patients sent home without being given any follow-up care. I also know of a triage policy in which staff were forced to send potentially seriously ill people home on the premise of giving them a call if their condition worsened”.

Dr. John’s claims are supported by a Care Quality Commission report that found 34% of NHS staff were pressured into placing “Do Not Resuscitate” orders on Covid patients with disabilities and learning difficulties. The policy led to people with disabilities and learning difficulties accounting for 3 in every 5 Covid deaths according to official ONS figures.

This testimony from an NHS staff member suggests that the public was being lied to regarding the official narrative of the NHS being overwhelmed during the pandemic.

It highlights the negative impact of misinformation and fear propaganda on the public’s perception of the situation, leading to people avoiding seeking medical treatment for fear of contracting the virus.

Additionally, it also highlights the negative impact of changes in care policies, leading to patients not receiving proper follow-up care and negative outcomes for patients and their families.

A fact that is also backed up by a document nicknamed ‘The Death Document’ that was published by NICE, an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.

As well as a mountain of evidence that the UK Government authorised the essential “mass murder” of the elderly and vulnerable by Midazolam injection and then told the public Covid-19 was to blame.

Between 2 March and 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died with COVID-19, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over, representing almost 40% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in England during this period.

This is a significant number considering that during the same period, 28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded in care homes in England, representing a 46% increase compared with the same period in previous years.

A number of decisions and policies adopted by authorities at the national and local level in the UK violated care home residents’ rights to life, to health, and to non-discrimination.

These include:Mass discharges from hospital into care homes.

Imposition of blanket Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders on residents of many care homes around the country and restrictions on residents’ access to hospital.

Suspension of regular oversight procedures for care homes by the statutory regulating body, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

These actions by authorities contributed to the high number of deaths among care home residents during the pandemic.

It is also stated that serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency.

Therefore, typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. It is also noted that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

With that in mind here is an important warning applied to Midazolam courtesy of the US National Library of Medicine –

Midazolam injection may cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death. You should only receive this medication in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops. Your doctor or nurse will watch you closely after you receive this medication to make sure that you are breathing properly.

The warning states that this medication should only be given in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the necessary equipment to monitor the patient’s heart and lungs and provide life-saving treatment if needed.

The question is therefore raised as to why the “Death Document” published in April 2020 instructs doctors to treat COVID-19 patients suffering a disease that allegedly affects the respiratory system with Midazolam, a drug that affects the respiratory system.

Another question is raised as to why during the same month out-of-hospital prescribing for Midazolam was twice the amount seen in 2019.

This raises concerns about the appropriateness of the treatment being given to Covid-19 patients in care homes during the pandemic.

The CQC, a statutory body commissioned by the Department for Health and Social Care, conducted a special review of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation found evidence of unacceptable and inappropriate DNACPR’s being made throughout the pandemic and states that it is possible that cases of inappropriate DNACPR’s remain in place.

The CQC’s investigation also found that throughout the “pandemic” this guidance was not being followed as they had received deeply troubling evidence from numerous sources that during the COVID-19 pandemic, DNACPR notices have been applied in a blanket fashion to some categories of person by some care providers, without any involvement of the individuals or their families.

Almost 10% of people using services or families who responded to their call for evidence told the British Institute of Human Rights that they had experienced pressure or use of DNACPR orders.

Thirty-four per cent of people working in health and/or social care said they were under pressure to put DNACPR’s in place without involving the person.

In addition, 71% of advocacy organizations and campaigners said they experienced DNACPR orders put in place or pressure to make them without being involved in the decision.

It’s also noted that these DNACPR orders were wrongly used as an excuse to begin end-of-life care.

The Death Document

NICE claims to be an independent organisation but in truth it seems to be anything but once you look into its structure. On this page HERE you will see the quote “Our Structure – The structure of the organisation and how we work with the government”. Following the link to the “Our Structure” page HERE, and then clicking “Find out more about how we develop guidelines” takes you to a page HERE from which is it clearly stated that “Topics are referred to NICE from the following organisations”:

Healthcare topics: NHS England

Public health topics: Department of Health and Social Care

Social care topics: Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education.

A copy of the NICE framework is HERE which you can go through at your leisure. As you will see at Clause 4.1 “The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the health system (its “steward”), including NICE”.

All the above information points to NICE not being independent at all. It is clearly part of the UK government, (NICE is funded by and accountable to the Department of Health and Social Care) and operates as an agency of the NHS. Further, and worryingly, given that it does not appear to be an independent organisation, the reach of NICE is extremely wide ranging given their guidance is implemented not only in hospitals, but in GP practices, and care homes and community organisations, along with others, and extends internationally.

It is with all the above in mind, that we must ask the question “Are the UK government, via the Department of Health and Social Care, responsible in any way for NICE guideline NG163 which led to the unnecessary killing of the UK’s elderly and most vulnerable by recommending the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the “treatment” of Covid 19?”

This document is tricky to find. If you search for it on the NICE website, you will reach a page that states that this guidance has been updated by NG191, which supersedes it. There is no library copy of NG163 for you to look at.

Clare Wills Harrison, a lawyer who has been exposing the Midazolam scandal since 2020, found NG163 some time ago along with multiple other documents which have since come to light and are relevant to the Midazolam issue. It is fair to say that NG163 has directly led to the incorrect use of a protocol which Clare and her team call “the death pathway”, and they have come to the conclusion that where the word “pathway” appears in any medical recommendations, this is normally a cause for concern.

You can read NG163 yourself by clicking HERE

When you read NG163, note the date – 3rd April 2020. This was less than 2 weeks after the UK entered lockdown. Even if we concede that NICE, via the government, were working on treatment guidelines from January 2020, when early reports of Covid 19 were circulating around the world, that would have given NICE only 3 months to formulate the guidance in NG163. It is inconceivable that NICE could have the evidence and effective information about the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the treatment of breathlessness and anxiety in Covid 19, within this time frame.

NG163 clearly states, Midazolam did not have a UK marketing licence to be used for breathlessness or agitation at the date of its publication. If prescribed for the same, it would therefore be regarded as being used off label. A PowerPoint presentation created by Clare Wills Harrison (see here) explains the extra requirements placed on anyone prescribing a medicine off-label. You should also consider the consistent refusal by the UK health agencies to allow prescribing off label for other cheap anti-viral drugs to treat Covid.

Source

The GMC regulates doctors in the United Kingdom. They set standards, hold a register, carry out quality assurance education and investigate complaints.

On 14th April the GMC put out a “Joint statement: Community-based prescribing for COVID-19 symptoms” which you can find HERE.

The joint statement irrefutably supports the NICE guidance in NG163 –

Source

Source

Lawyer Clare Wills Harrison spoke to Dr Bryan Ardis in detail about the “Death Document” and more in the video below –

It’s quite clear, from the evidence provided by whistleblowing NHS staff, investigative lawyers, and official Government reports is that you gave up over two years of your life due to a lie.

A lie that involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, who you were told died of Covid-19.

A lie that has involved committing one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory.

A lie that has required three things – fear, your compliance, and a drug known as Midazolam.

The Demolition of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. “The Devil’s Trick”

Well ladies, I now know about Thermate ( not Thermite ) and the evidence supports the use of a dirty NUKE in the cellar.  This also explains the known reports on so called repairs inside these buildings in which spraying was underway.

This could all have been done with scant disturbance or worker knowledge as well.  understand we are looking now at two decades of real forensic work.  What you read here is not speculation any longer.

What we also need to understand is that Bin Laden's task was to deliver the cover story on time.  of course even that is sketchy.  one picture of a plane could have been faked or not.  Certainly the pentagon was a missle hit.  None of that matters because three buildings were carefully demolished with or without the side show..

The only organization able to pull all this off was *** and they certainly worked closely with the owner here and also the insurance industry. 

The Demolition of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. “The Devil’s Trick”

By Mark H. Gaffney

Global Research, August 27, 2023

Region: USA

Theme: Intelligence, Law and Justice, Terrorism

***

First published on August 19, 2023

https://www.globalresearch.ca/demolition-world-trade-center-devil-trick/5829424

As we approach the 22nd anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, more than enough evidence exists to draw reasonable conclusions about what happened that day and who was responsible.

Most of the basic facts have been known for years, though unfortunately have not been readily available to the general public.

Way back in 2007, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, Dr Steven E. Jones, turned up critical evidence while investigating samples of World Trade Center (WTC) dust. The samples had been collected immediately after September 11, 2001 from the thick deposit of dust that blanketed the WTC site and much of lower Manhattan. Jones found tiny bits of an exotic incendiary known as thermate that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. Thermate burns at ~5,000°F. The main product of the reaction is molten iron.

Thermate differs from its better known cousin thermite in that it contains sulfur which lowers the melting point of iron, speeding up the reaction. The presence of both sulfur and aluminum was diagnostic for thermate. Jones called this “the last nail in the coffin.” (Dr. Steven E. Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001. Applying the Scientific Method, 2007, posted here)

Jones also found an abundance of tiny iron microspheres in the dust (up to .05% by volume), proof that large amounts of WTC steel had melted. The diameter of the spheres ranged from one micron to 1.5 mm. When Jones obtained some thermate, which is commercially available, and used it to cut through a steel plate, the reaction produced an intense spray of molten droplets which cooled into iron microspheres identical to the spheres in the dust.

Other studies of the WTC dust also reported the iron microspheres. (Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker, Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, posted here; also see Damage Assessment: 130 Liberty Street Property. WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology. December 2003, posted here)

Jones and his colleagues learned that thermite/thermate can be made more explosive by reducing the particle size of the ingredients. This more reactive variety is known as super thermate or nano-thermate. (Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, 2009, posted here)

And there were other revelations. It is indeed shocking how far the development of thermate had “progressed” by the late 1990s. Jones & Co, learned that a liquid sol-gel form of nano-thermate can be applied to steel simply by spraying or painting it on. This means insiders could have prepped the twin towers for demolition undetected during an elevator retrofit, a fireproofing upgrade, or even during routine maintenance. Nor was it necessary to wire the entire building. Ignition can be accomplished remotely using a specially designed thermitic match triggered by a radio signal. Once thermate is ignited, the reaction is self perpetuating. (Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections between NIST and Nano-thermites, July 2, 2008, posted here)

All of this is consistent with the many eyewitness accounts of explosions on 9/11. And it is consistent with the testimony of New York City firemen, first responders and clean-up crews who reported seeing copious amounts of molten steel on site. As one fireman put it: “molten steel was flowing down the channel rails like in a foundry…”

(David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor revisited, 2008, pp. 31-37; Mark H. Gaffney, The 9/11 Mystery Plane, 2008, pp.132-139; Graeme MacQueen, 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, posted here)

Office and building fires do not reach temperatures anywhere near hot enough to melt steel which has a melting point of 2,500°F. Nor were there any combustible materials in the WTC, nor any combination thereof, capable of approaching this temperature. Although burning jet fuel has been frequently (and incorrectly) cited as the reason for the WTC collapse, the reality is otherwise. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and will not burn in air in excess of 1,832°F, far below the melting point of steel.

Not long after the towers collapsed, a hard rain storm drenched Manhattan. Firemen also sprayed millions of gallons of water onto the smoking ruin of the WTC in an attempt to extinguish the fires, all to no effect. This is consistent with burning thermate, which includes its own chemically bound oxygen. This is why a thermate fire cannot be smothered by dowsing and will even burn underwater.

The WTC site was so hot it melted the workmen’s rubber boots. Search-and-rescue dogs brought in to help locate survivors suffered severe burns, and three of the dogs died. Just how hot was the pile? We got an idea on September 16, 2001 when NASA conducted a flyover using an infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS) and detected surface temperatures as high as 1,376° F. Temperatures beneath the pile were undoubtedly much higher. (See this)

The site remained intensely hot for five months. Molten steel was reported as late as February 2002 when clean-up crews finally reached the bottom of the WTC bathtub. (Jennifer Lin, “Recovery Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground Zero”, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, May 29, 2002, posted here)

The discovery of thermate in the WTC dust should have been front-page headline news across America, and indeed, around the world. Yet, as we know, the US media went deaf and dumb on the issue. Why? If Muslim jihadists were behind the 9/11 attacks, why would the media censor this breaking story? The only plausible reason for suppressing it was to prevent the truth from emerging about what actually happened. Blanket censorship has been the rule, ever since.

Nor was the cover up limited to the media. After many months of stalling, the G.W. Bush White House reluctantly appointed a government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to investigate and explain the WTC collapse.

The agency released its findings in 2005. In its final report NIST unequivocally states that it found no evidence the WTC was demolished. The multi-volume 10,000-page report gives the appearance of a thorough investigation. But a close reading (I spent many weeks digging into it) shows that NIST worked backwards looking for facts to support a predetermined conclusion that plane impacts and office fires caused the WTC collapse. In the process, NIST dismissed an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

No doubt, this is why many concerned citizens flooded NIST with critical comments and questions about its report. The public wanted to know: Did your scientists actually look for explosives? If so, where is the beef?

In 2006, the agency posted a clarification on its website. NIST acknowledged that it failed to look for explosive residues. (See question #29 here)

The admission was fatal to the agency’s credibility, and exposed the NIST report for what it is, a pile of stinking manure. Testing for thermitic incendiaries and explosives is standard practice in fire investigations. The national standard calls for it. (NFPA 921)

All of which means that the familiar narrative about Osama bin Laden and nineteen fanatic A-rabs is nothing but a cover story: a tapestry of lies. There is no way foreign jihadists could have gained access to the WTC to pre-position explosives. Nor in any event could Al Qaeda have manufactured thermate in a cave in Afghanistan. The incendiary is high-tech and in 2001 only a handful of nations had the capacity to produce it, the US and Israel at the top of the list.

As Sherlock Holmes famously told Watson: My friend, once you rule out the impossible what remains must be the truth. Like it or not.

The Devil’s Trick?

But is thermate the whole truth? Can thermate alone account for everything we witnessed on 9/11? This is the contentious question that some in the 9/11 truth community have been attempting to raise, for years.

According to NIST, the steel in the monster box columns in the core of the towers was up to seven inches thick at the base. Could thermate cut through columns of this size? Doubtful. (NIST NCSTAR 1-3 p. 10).

We know that enormous explosions ripped through the basement of each tower shortly before they fell. A photographer named Rick Siegal actually captured these explosions on film from Hoboken, just across the Hudson River from Manhattan. The quality of Siegal’s video was excellent because his camera was set on a tripod. Moreover, it was also equipped with audio so he was able to record the thunderous noise which carried across the river. The footage is graphic. After each blast a dust cloud is plainly visible rising from around the base of the tower. Collapse ensued within minutes. These huge explosions shook the ground and evidently were intended to weaken the towers by destroying the gigantic core columns. In my opinion they were not caused by thermate.

We also know that during the collapse large segments of the outer perimeter wall were thrown at least 600 feet from the base of the towers. Could thermate do this? Not likely. This points to a much more powerful explosive.

Recently, I also learned about another anomaly. On completion of the clean up at ground zero, two cavernous holes in the bedrock were very much in evidence at the site. They were located near to where the towers stood. The deepest of these was 110-feet below street level, so deep the bottom was below sea level. Obviously, thermate did not excavate these enormous voids in the granite. I was stunned when I learned about this.

Image: The crater in WTC-6 (Source: Mark Gaffney)

The official story is that ice age glaciers carved the “grand canyon of Manhattan” 20,000 years ago. (David W. Dunlap, At Ground Zero, Scenes from the Ice Age, New York Times, September 21, 2008, posted here)

However, a German physicist who thinks outside the box, Heinz Pommer, has a different explanation. In 2018, during a presentation in London, Pommer argued that the twin towers were demolished with a nuclear bomb [e.g. dirty bomb, “type of a “radiological dispersal device” (RDD) that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material”]. He thinks the enormous voids in the granite may have been a collateral effect.

Pommer is not the first to refer to the use of nukes on 9/11. Others who did so before him have faced disbelief and ridicule. The main argument against nukes is the absence of radiation at the WTC site. Although a nuclear isotope, tritium, was definitely detected, allegedly its presence has been otherwise accounted for, ruling out nukes.

But Pommer begs to differ. He argues that the placement of the Uranium charge at the bottom of the WTC elevator shaft explains the seeming absence of radiation. The nuclear reaction in these simple but effective weapons proceeded slowly, at first. As the heat from fission built up, the Uranium charge melted down into the granite.

The result was a pressure chamber in the bedrock below each tower where fission ultimately fizzled and was contained. The fusion component, however, formed a rising plasma needle that eventually broke containment. At a critical point, super-heated gas and gamma radiation vented vertically through the core of each tower, analogous to a volcanic gas jet eruption. All of this was hidden from view until the moment the tower visibly exhaled dust and gas from the upper levels. Then came the symmetric top-down collapse.

Pommer argues (yet to be confirmed) that only the vast energy of a nuke can explain the conversion of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel into dust. And only a nuke can account for the sudden disintegration of the upper portion of the South Tower (WTC-2) which had tipped at a weird angle and was falling as a unit. And only a nuke can explain the near total absence of ceramic sinks and toilets, filing cabinets, furniture, and human bodies in the wreckage. Almost everything in the towers was vaporized by gamma radiation.

According to Pommer, the nuclear reaction progressed over at least an hour, and this would explain a number of anomalies. These include electromagnetic interference of radio and tv transmissions, spontaneous fires in surrounding buildings and in nearby vehicles, the pyroclastic cloud that enveloped lower Manhattan, conspicuous venting of steam from underground sewers, strange rainbow effects and silverfish flashes in video footage, and the like.

Recently, important new evidence has also come to light. In 2019, doctors at Mt. Sinai Medical Center reported “an increased incidence of thyroid cancer among 9/11 rescue workers….the etiology of which remains unclear.” I only learned about this, a few days ago. (See this)

Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thyroid cancer has been recognized as the tell-tale signature of exposure to nuclear radiation. A spike of thyroid cancers also occurred after the Chernobyl disaster. (See this)

I believe the thyroid cancers are the true smoking gun of 9/11, and a wake up call. Pommer’s thesis deserves thoughtful consideration. He calls it the devil’s trick. (Part one below, part two here, part three here)

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mark H. Gaffney is the author of Dimona the Third Temple (1989), The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America (2008), Black 9/11. Money, Motive and Technology (2016), and Deep History and the Ages of Man (2022). Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net

Doomsday for the Buck? “A Reserve Currency Is No Longer Needed”

This is a worthy thought, not least because this system has now existed  mostly because of WWII displacing the British Imperial Money system which was limited to the empire.  All of us have now lived with a dominant dollar system which produced thye eurodollar market and then the Petrodollar which we now work with.

what must succede it all will be an AI operated global currency regime combined with natural community based fiat currency regime that obviates currency creation itself..

It will take time to get there, but at least the US dollar is now on notice to clean up its act which will soon happen.


Doomsday for the Buck? “A Reserve Currency Is No Longer Needed”

By Mike Whitney and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, August 29, 2023

https://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-buck-reserve-currency-no-longer-needed/5830583

Mike Whitney interviews Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a renowned author and academic, and chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.

Mike Whitney (MW): To what extent has the war in Ukraine accelerated the move to a new global realignment?

Paul Craig Roberts (PCR): It was Washington’s economic sanctions against Russia, the theft of Russia’s central bank reserves, and the theft of Venezuela’s gold, not the conflict in Ukraine, that weaponized the US dollar and resulted in global realignment.

The limited Russian intervention in Donbas was Putin’s belated eight-year-delayed response to the US coup that overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014 and installed a government hostile to Russia and to the Russian population that had been incorporated into the Ukraine province of the Soviet Union by Soviet leaders. The intervention was forced on Putin by the United States’ buildup of a large Ukraine army poised to overthrow the self-declared Donbas republics.

By habit and convenience, the US dollar is used as world money to settle imbalances in international trade, but the sanctions woke the world up to the risks of using the dollar. Consequently, the BRICS suddenly expanded with membership extended to Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The organization now contains essentially the entirety of world oil production and 40-45% of World GDP.

Clearly, a realignment has already occurred.

MW: Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE have now all joined BRICS. How will this affect the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency? (Is this the end of the petrodollar?)

PCR: Saudi Arabia announced the end of the petrodollar when it began accepting payment for oil in other currencies. The BRICS are working out how to carry on trade among themselves without use of the US dollar, which in effect brings to an end the role of the dollar as world reserve currency.

The BRICS might try to create a new reserve currency consisting of a weighted basket of their currencies. This is unnecessary and could lead to strains among BRICS members from disputes over the shares of each currency in the basket. A reserve currency is no longer needed. A reserve currency was needed at the end of WWII because the other industrialized economies were destroyed. As the US had the only intact economy, the role fell to the US dollar. Today this is not the situation. Central banks can keep their reserves in the form of the currencies of their trading partners.

What this means for Washington is that the US will begin having financing problems for its large budget and trade deficits. As long as the dollar was the world money, foreign central banks kept their reserves in US Treasury debt. As US budget and trade deficits grew, so did the reserves of the world banking system.

The situation is changing. If a dozen countries constituting about half of the world’s population and 40-45% of world GDP cease using the dollar, the foreign central bank market for US debt shrinks considerably. Having offshored its manufacturing, the US is import-dependent. Declining use of the dollar means a declining supply of customers for US debt, which means pressure on the dollar’s exchange value and the prospect of rising inflation from rising prices of imports.

MW: Can Washington allow this realignment to stand or should we expect to see a coup in Saudi Arabia where the US has five military bases and numerous CIA offices?

PCR: I do not know if Washington has the ability to overthrow the Saudi government or whether Russia, China, and Iran would permit it. Remember, President Obama was going to overthrow Assad in Syria, but Putin did not permit it.

MW: The globalist dreams of the western oligarchs (WEF) appear to be coming to an end along with the so-called “rules-based order”. In your opinion, how important has Vladimir Putin been in spearheading the move towards a “new architecture for global security” and laying the groundwork for a new multipolar world order?

PCR: What broke up Washington’s version of global order was the West’s cold shoulder to Putin’s effort to be a part of the world order on equal standing and not in a subservient position. It was Washington’s arrogance and foolishness that broke up the global order.

MW: Before he died, national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that the US would need to seek an accommodation with Russia and China to ease the transition away from the unipolar system. 

Here’s what he said:

“As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture… the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, i t is no longer the globally imperial power….

the United States must take the lead in realigning the global power architecture in such a way that the violence …can be contained without destroying the global order.…

a long and painful road toward an initially limited regional accommodation is the only viable option for the United States, Russia, China, and the pertinent Middle Eastern entities. For the United States, that will require patient persistence in forging cooperative relationships with some new partners (particularly Russia and China)…

The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene…. During the latter part of the 20th century no other power even came close. That era is now ending. Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest

In your opinion, how should the United States deal with Moscow and Beijing? Is there a way that we can defend US interests while –at the same time– avoiding years of conflict and confrontation? What should our foreign policy objectives be?

PCR: The neoconservatives’ goal of US hegemony prevents Washington from hearing Brzezinski’s advice. Washington’s chance to deal with Russia and China has passed. The question we face is how will Russia and China deal with Washington. The neoconservative monopoly on US foreign policy means that there are no other voices for Washington to hear, and American hegemony is out of the question.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

James Delingpole: How red-pilled arbiters of truth discredit our cause

This is a worthy discussion. It is also difficult to shake yourself free from the recieved narritive.  In my own case, I mostly accepted all narritives as presented but with sub conscious caveats that told me to revisit the story later after my emotions had died down.  initially that is really the best any human being can do.

Long term. i have discovered that death bed confessions do come along and shed real light of what are patently false narritives.  Yet they are really finally confirmation of a developing counter narritive.

It took a death bed confession to confirm physics research on gravity taking place in 1955 that my lab rat stumbled across two years ago.  It was really that easy.  This immediately disclosed the natural gravity tech work undertaken by the USA since then and conformed totally to the majority of UFO reports.  Thanks guys.

Of course, now we have 9/11 and various other events as well.

James Delingpole: How red-pilled arbiters of truth discredit our cause

BY RHODA WILSON ON AUGUST 30, 2023 

https://expose-news.com/2023/08/30/how-red-pilled-arbiters-of-truth-discredit-our-cause/

“I call them the ‘purple-pilled’ because though they’ve taken the red pill more or less they still want to keep one foot in the blue-pilled camp for old times’ sake,” James Delingpole writes.

The problem that arises is purple pillers like to be the arbiters of truth. They like to declare which “conspiracy theories” are legitimate subjects for open-minded consideration and which ones are so ridiculous that one can safely dismiss them without so much as a cursory glance.

“But you’re never going to attain [the] truth unless you first adopt a position of humility. This means acknowledging that you don’t know everything and being prepared to reassess all the things you thought you knew to be true,” he adds.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

TYPE YOUR EMAIL…

SUBSCRIBE

‘Discrediting Our Cause’

By James Delingpole

“I was all ready to believe that 9/11 was an inside job but then someone mentioned Flat Earth”, said no one ever.

Actually, that’s probably not true. I’m quite prepared to concede that somewhere out there might be at least one person so intellectually spavined, so crippled with insecurity, so prey to groupthink as to have fallen for the logical fallacy that if a person thinks A then they must perforce be wrong about B.

But I don’t believe that’s the way most of us think. Not even dyed-in-wool Normies.

Try this analogy. I call it the Hitler/dogs fallacy.

It’s 1937 and for some unfathomable reason, you’ve been invited for the weekend at the Fuhrer’s lovely mountain retreat in Berchtesgarten. Hitler, you notice, is very attached to his German Shepherd whom he has taught to do all sorts of charming tricks: right paw, left paw, lie down, roll over and pretend you’re dead, etc.

Now, as it so happens, you’ve been thinking of getting a dog yourself. “Would you recommend a German Shepherd?”, you ask your host, in your immaculate German. “Oh yes,” replies Hitler. “Stimmt! They make excellent guard dogs; they are very loyal; but as you can see, despite their reputation for fierceness they can also be very gentle.”

Over this same weekend you’ve chatted to the Fuhrer about all manner of other topics besides dogs: motorways, VWs, vegetarianism, Jews, Bolsheviks, the Stab in the Back betrayal after the First World War, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, degenerate art, etc. Some of this stuff you agreed with him on. Some of his opinions you found a bit iffy.

But I ask you this: did the fact that you disagreed with Hitler on certain issues prevent you from taking him seriously on certain other ones?

My suspicion is not. Few of us – none of us, I would even dare say – is quite that basic. When making a decision about this or that issue any number of factors come into play. Sure, prejudice towards a person’s apparent belief system or their character may play a part in that decision-making process. But it’s not necessarily the deciding factor. If it were, none of us would ever have said the thing which we have all said at one time or another: “I never thought I’d hear myself agreeing with Piers Morgan but…”

Anyway, I haven’t quite finished with my tasteless Hitler analogy, much as some of you might wish it. I’ve made the main point, which is that just because Hitler is Hitler doesn’t mean he’s wrong about dogs. But there’s another subsidiary point I wish to make which I believe will cast further useful light on the topic in hand.

So, you get home from Berchtesgarten, and announce to your wife/girlfriend: “We’re getting a German Shepherd.”

Almost inevitably, wife/girlfriend – or husband if you’re a woman or gay, the analogy works just as well, but I like to keep things old-school sexist – will be furious with you. Especially when you explain your reasons.

“Oh so we’re taking advice from Hitler now are we? Literally advice from Adolf Hitler? Are you mad??”

But you know – as indeed does your partner, if he/she were being strictly honest – that this is just a ploy.

Maybe they’re pissed off that you were invited to Berchtesgarten and they weren’t. Or they’re simply not into the idea of a getting a dog. The Hitler thing is merely a handy excuse that enables them to sidestep the real issue.

And so it is that well-worn line that one hears so often these days from fairweather Awake types – I call them the ‘purple-pilled’ because though they’ve taken the red pill more or less they still want to keep one foot in the blue-pilled camp for old times’ sake – that there are some conspiracy theories out there which are simply beyond the pale. They are so silly, these more outre conspiracy theories, that even to talk about them just discredits ‘our’ cause.

“Oh they do, do they?” I like to ask these purple-pilled arbiters of truth. “And who exactly gave you the authority to declare, Ex Cathedra, which conspiracy theories are legitimate subjects for open-minded consideration and which ones are so self-evidently ridiculous that one can safely dismiss them without so much as a cursory glance?”

Never once have I found any of these purple-pilled types able to give me a satisfactory answer. That’s because there isn’t one.

If you accept – as all the red-pilled must because it is the foundation of Awake awareness – that the world as it has been sold to us is a tissue of lies, half-truths and deceptions, then it naturally follows that everything we think we know about the world is potentially fallacious.

Note that qualifier ‘potentially.’ I’m certainly not suggesting that everything is a lie – because that would mean that there is no such thing as truth. Of course I believe in truth, for it is an expression of the divine, and seeking out that truth is one of our holiest missions. But you’re never going to attain that truth unless you first adopt a position of humility. This means acknowledging that you don’t know everything and being prepared to reassess all the things you thought you knew to be true.

I am now in my late fifties and for most of my life there were various things I believed with absolute certainty: that man had landed (several times) on the moon; that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman called Lee Harvey Oswald; that the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg; and so on.

More recently, I have to come to realise that the official narrative on all these events has holes in it even bigger than an iceberg through a reinforced steel hull.

I achieved this new understanding by the simple process of looking at the evidence. It was hard won knowledge, as knowledge which contradicts the official version of events invariably is. You’re up against a vast, intricate, well-funded system of organised deception. You are not, for example, just going to be able to type into Google ‘Did man really land on the moon?’ because the algorithms are going to be weighted in favour of telling you that man did. So is the publishing industry. So is the entertainment industry – ‘Giant steps are what you take…walking on the moon’, etc. So are all the ‘respectable’ academics and other ‘expert’ talking heads. Yet, put in the hours and you’ll get there in the end because, as the Earl of Oxford and his scriptorium once so famously put it, the truth will out.

No matter how great the obstacles which have been erected, by conspiratorial design, to prevent you attaining that truth, there’s really only one guaranteed to prevent you from succeeding. That obstacle is the little voice in your head that says: “No, I’m not going to go there. I already know what I know. I don’t need any pesky new evidence which might shake my belief system to its foundations. I’m happy where I am, thank you very much.”

This is how Normies think. They are unwilling to take the first step on to what Neil Kramer calls the ‘Staircase of Disbelief’ because they understand, if even only on a subconscious level, that once they have done so they can never turn back. It’s not outlandish conspiracy theories they fear. It’s ALL conspiracies – for they understand instinctively that this is a zero sum game.

But for anyone of even slightly of a red-pilled persuasion that way of thinking is no longer intellectually tenable. If you have accepted the truth of even one conspiracy theory, no matter what it is, moon landings, JFK, whatever, then you have abnegated the right to declare any other conspiracy off limits.

The reason for this is simple. You have already acknowledged that there are forces out there so corrupt, powerful, devious, entrenched and malign that they have happily and gleefully lied to you about something really big. And if they happily and gleefully lied to you about one really big thing, who are you to say that they haven’t happily and gleefully lied to you about lots of other really big things (and small things) too?

Yes, sure, you can be agnostic about this or that other ‘conspiracy theory’. But what you can no longer do is be dogmatic about its falsehood – at least not until you’ve put in the necessary research, and perhaps not even then.

What usually happens to the purple-pilled when this logical sloppiness has been pointed out to them is that they retreat to their second line of defence.

“Well even if no viruses/flat earth/Paul is dead happen to be true we just shouldn’t go there because it just frightens off the Normies and we need to focus on the issues that matter.”

But this line of defence is at least as weak as the first.

It presupposes that there are commonly agreed ‘issues that matter.’ But there is no such common agreement – as we saw, inter alia, during the ‘Pandemic.’

In the name of pragmatism and unity – ‘Let’s not frighten the horses’, ‘We need to build a broad coalition’, etc – the resistance movement was hijacked by a claque of suspiciously well-organised activist groups like Together which declared that certain areas of discussion should be off limits.

Apparently, it was OK to campaign on issues like ‘vaccine mandates’ and the importance of bodily autonomy. But questioning the safety or efficacy of these ‘vaccines’, or the malign nature of the corrupted institutions pushing them, or the agenda behind the ‘vaccines’, was deemed a step too far because such ‘unproven conspiracy theories’ might alienate potential allies.

So much for the theory behind the strategy. Let’s examine what happened in practice. Here we are, two or three years on, and despite copious evidence – excess deaths, for example – that those purveyors of ‘unproven conspiracy theories’ were right in every detail, still they cannot get a hearing anywhere in the mainstream media. Nor can they get a hearing in what you might call the Officially Designated Alternative Mainstream Media: gatekeepers like GB News, Triggernometry, Spiked, Unherd, the Daily Sceptic, Talk Radio, Together, anyone connected with Nigel Farage etc which continue to make lots of faux-principled protestations about the iniquity of lockdowns, the importance of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice but still, even now, remain at best squeamish and evasive on more ‘contentious’ subjects like vaccine injury.

In other words, far from uniting the resistance, the broad front ‘pragmatism and unity’ strategy has divided and neutralised that resistance by luring a significant portion of it into containment pens. All those people out there who have sensed that something is wrong and are now eager for guidance on what it is are being led into a trap by the abovementioned Judas Goats. That trap, essentially, is a state of controlled ignorance: “Yes, you are quite right to worry your pretty little heads about immigration, government incompetence and not having to wear a mask or have a jab if you don’t want to. But don’t be bothering yourself about kill shots, 15 minute cities or CBDCs. If any of these were a problem we’d tell you about it. Meanwhile, here’s a piece we’ve just commissioned from an anonymous ‘expert’, explaining why the threat posed by CBDCs is totally overrated…”

All this, I believe, was by design and not by accident. They faked the Moon Landings, assassinated various presidents, and initiated any number of wars. You’d need to be suffering severe cognitive dissonance to imagine that these same diabolical, sadistic, perma-lying control freaks are too flaky to take precautions against all those dissidents who threaten to expose their schemes. Controlled opposition, Judas Goats, gatekeepers: these are all tried and tested methods of capturing resistance movements and leading them astray. So too are handy phrases like “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” and – the subject of this article – that oft-repeated line about how we shouldn’t engage with this or that conspiracy theory because it ‘discredits our cause.’

Now obviously I’m not suggesting that all the people who wheel out that hackneyed ‘discredits our cause’ phrase are working for the enemy. Many of them, I’m quite sure, do so in the belief that they are imposing a measure of discipline, common sense and pragmatism on the resistance movement. But however good their intentions may be, what they are actually achieving when they parrot that phrase is doing the enemy’s work for him. I suppose if I wanted to be rude I could characterise the people who betray their own cause in this way as ‘useful idiots.’ But instead, on this occasion, let me be uncharacteristically tactful. The people who, in good faith, trot out the ‘discredits our cause’ line are not bad people or stupid people. They’re just people who haven’t quite thought things through properly. But maybe, now that they’ve read this, they will…

About the Author

James Delingpole describes himself as an author, blogger, podcaster, irritant and hero. Officially, he is an English writer, journalist, and columnist who has written for a number of publications, including the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator. He is a former executive editor for Breitbart London and has published several novels and four political books.

US Job Openings Far Lower Than Reported By Department Of Labor, UBS Finds

 

Understand that key economic stats have been manipulaterd for decades.  It was always too easy a target and also open to later correction as well in order to put the numbers back in order.  My argument is that they could and they did.

all that becomes a serious problem when the economy experiences a serious shock which the pandemic delivered.  Now everything is out of whack and you are trying to set it right.

now we have clearly rising unemployment arriving because of sharply jacked interest rates.  They are now too high. this means the jobs market is getting squirrally.  We are starting to feel the pain and higher prices are also unsustainable as well.  and of course thyey continue to game inflation rates as well

US Job Openings Far Lower Than Reported By Department Of Labor, UBS Finds

BY TYLER DURDEN

TUESDAY, JAN 31, 2023 - 04:24 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-job-opening-far-lower-reported-department-labor-ubs-finds

When it comes to labor market data (or rather "data"), Biden's labor department is a study in contrasts (and pats on shoulders). One day we get a contraction in PMI employment (both manufacturing and services), the other we get a major beat in employment. Then, one day the Household survey shows a plunge in employment (in fact, there has almost been no employment gain in the past 9 months) and a record in multiple jobholders and part-time workers, and the same day the Establishment Survey signals a spike in payrolls (mostly among waiters and bartenders). Or the day the JOLTS report shows an unexpected jump in job openings even as actual hiring slides to a two year low. Or the straw the breaks the latest trend in the labor market's back, is when the jobs report finally cracks and shows the fewest jobs added in over a year, and yet initial jobless claims tumble and reverse all recent increases despite daily news of mass layoffs across all tech companies, as the relentless barrage of conflicting data out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which is the principal "fact-finding" agency for the Biden Administration and a core pillar of the Dept of Labor) just won't stop, almost as if to make a very political point.

But while one can certainly appreciate Biden's desire to paint the glass of US jobs as always half full, reality is starting to make a mockery of the president's gaslighting ambitions, as one by one core pillars of the administration's "strong jobs" fabulation collapse. First it was the Philadelphia Fed shockingly stating that contrary to the BLS "goalseeking" of 1.1 million jobs in Q2 2022, the US actually only added a paltry 10,000 jobs (just as the Fed unleashed an unprecedented spree of 75bps rate hikes).

Then, it was Goldman's turn to make a mockery of the "curiously" low initial jobless claims, by comparing them to directly reported state-level WARN notices (mandatory under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act) which no low-level bureaucrat and Biden lackey can "seasonally adjust" because there they are: cold, hard, fact, immutable and truly representative of the underlying economic truth, and what they show is that - as the Goldman chart below confirms - layoffs are rising far faster than what the DOL's Initial Claims indicates.

More importantly, Goldman also found that WARN notices also track the JOLTS layoff rate: WARN notice counts remained elevated in late 2020 even as the layoff rate declined, but this likely reflects unusual reporting delays during the pandemic and the exclusion of layoffs at closing establishments in the JOLTS survey, which WARN notices capture provided firms remain in business. Not surprisingly, Goldman's tracking estimate based on December and January WARN notices for the large states covered not only shows that the recent drop in initial claims is unlikely, but that it is also consistent with a layoff rate of around 1.1%, higher than the 0.9% in the November JOLTS report.

And now, another core pillar of the US labor market is being dismantled, and it has to do with the Fed's favorite labor market indicator: the JOLTS report of job openings.

As UBS economist Pablo Villanueva writes in a recent report by the bank's Evidence Lab group, Job openings in the JOLTS survey have not declined much since the March peak. Indeed, the BLS reports that openings were only 12% below the March 2022 peak in November and remain 48% above the pre-pandemic, 2019 average. This slight move downward has, as we noted recently, led to only a small decline in the vacancies-to-unemployment ratio, from 1.99 in March to 1.74 in November, still well above the 2019 average of 1.19.

Of course, such a high level of job openings is alarming to the Fed for the simple reason that it means Powell has failed at his mission at cooling off what appears to be a red hot jobs market; no wonder the Fed Chair has frequently flagged the high level of job openings as a sign of ongoing strength in the labor market. The bottom line, as UBS notes, is that "the BLS measure, although it has declined, remains historically high."

However, as in the abovementioned case of unexpectedly low jobless claims, there may be more here than meets the eye. According to Villanueva, "a range of other measures of job openings suggest normalization in the labor market—softening much more convincingly, often to pre-pandemic levels" - translation: whether on purpose or accidentally, the BLS is fabricating data. Also, the UBS economist flags, job openings are not a great indicator of current labor market conditions—they lagged the last two downturns in the labor market.

So what's the real story?

Well, as usual there is BLS "data" and everyone else... and as UBS cautions, other measures of openings tell a very different story: "Our UBS Evidence Lab data on job listings is weekly and more timely than the BLS series. The last datapoint is for the week of December 31. It shows openings down 30% from the March 2022 peak and only 25% higher than the 2019 average."

While BLS bureaucrats and Biden sycophants can argue UBS data is inaccurate, other longer dated series also indicate weaker openings. Take for example the NFIB Small Business Survey includes labor market measures that have correlated strongly with the JOLTS data over time but have weakened more sharply than the JOLTS measure in recent months. The percentage of small firms unable to fill open positions has a correlation of 0.95 with JOLTS openings since 2000. This series has declined 20% relative to the peak in May 2022 and is only 13% above the 2019 average. The NFIB series on percentage of firms with few or no qualified applicants tells a similar story.

Finally, the "Opportunity Insights" measure of openings (see here) is also below pre-pandemic levels.

So what's going on here?

As the UBS economist puts it, "in short, other surveys of job openings generally suggest that the BLS measure may be overstating labor market tightness. One reason to think the accuracy of the JOLTS data may have declined is that the sample shrank noticeably at the start of the pandemic. In 2019, the survey response rate was 60%. In December, it was 30%."

Or perhaps it's not gross BLS incompetence (or propaganda): maybe it's just a data quirk at key economic inflection points. As UBS observed in August, job openings tend to lag other labor market indicators. Ahead of the 2001 recession, the private sector job openings rate was still rising as private employment peaked and started printing negative. Again in 2007, as job openings were peaking, payroll employment in the revised data had slowed considerably, and job openings remained near their peak as employment was beginning to contract outright.

Whatever the reason for the discrepancy in this latest labor series, the bigger picture is getting troubling.We already knew that the employment as measured by the Household survey has been flat since March even as the Establishment survey signaled 2.7 million job gains since then. Shortly thereafter the Philadelphia Fed found that contrary to the BLS "goalseeking" of 1.1 million jobs in Q2 2022, the US actually only added a paltry 10,000 jobs in the second quarter of 2022. As such, the validity and credibility of the US nonfarm payrolls report is suspect at best.

A few weeks ago, Goldman also put the credibility of DOL's weekly jobless claims report under question, when it found that initial claims as measured at the state level without seasonal adjustments or other "fudge factors" were running far higher than what the DOL reports every week.

And now, we can also stick a fork in the JOLTS report, whose accuracy has just been steamrolled by UBS with its finding that job openings - a critical component of the US labor market and the Fed's preferred labor market indiator - are far lower than what the Dept of Labor suggests.

Bottom line: while it is obvious why the Biden admin would try hard to put as much lipstick as it can on US jobs data, the same data when measured with alternative measures shows a far uglier picture, one of a US labor market on the verge of cracking and hardly one meriting consistent rate hikes by the Fed.

Which, considering that in less than 24 hours the Fed will hike rates by another 25 bps, is extremely important, and we wish that we weren't the only media outlet to lay out the facts as the negative impact of continued policy error and tightening by the Fed will impact tens of millions Americans, not to mention the continued errors - whether premeditated or accidental - by the US Department of Labor. Alas, as so often happens, since nobody else in the "independent US press" is willing to touch the story of manipulated jobs data with a ten foot pole, it is again up to us to explain what is really going on.

The full UBS report available to pro subs.