SC290-12

https://informationclearinghouse.blog/2023/11/27/never-stop-being-shocked-by-the-depravity-of-the-empire/

Never Stop Being Shocked By The Depravity Of The Empire

A friend of mine shared my article about how the Biden administration is worried the pause in fighting will allow journalists into Gaza to show Israel’s crimes to the world, saying he knows he shouldn’t be surprised by how evil these freaks are but somehow he still is.

I told him I actually consciously cultivate the ability to stay surprised by such things. If you stop being surprised when you see the world’s most powerful people always finding new and innovative ways to make the world a worse place for ordinary human beings, it means it’s become normalized in your system in some way. It means that on top of all the other horrible evils they’ve inflicted upon our world, they’ve also managed to steal an important part of your humanity.

No longer being shocked by the murderousness of the empire is a counterintuitive sign that something unhealthy is happening to you, like when the body stops shivering as it sinks into the later stages of hypothermia, or when the hunger pangs go away in the later stages of starvation. It’s a sign that your system is no longer forcefully rejecting conditions it ought to reject, and has instead shifted into giving up and trying to conserve energy.

I spend all day every day staring into the ugliest parts of the imperial machine, but I refuse to let it desensitize me. These monsters have taken so very, very much from the world, and I refuse to let them take that too. I refuse to let them rob me of my humanity like that.

I see it as a sacred duty to keep a flame lit in myself which knows what a healthy world looks like, which knows what sanity looks like, which knows how things ought to be, and which naturally finds it jarring when the sickness of this civilization reveals itself.

I refuse to accept this as normal. I refuse to let the abuses of the empire turn me into a callused, jaded husk of a human who can only respond to each new monstrosity with a deep world-weary sigh. I make sure it still brings up a white hot rage in me. I make sure it still brings white hot tears to my eyes.

You can’t let them take that from you. You can’t let them harden your heart and darken your eyes. We’ve got to keep the flame burning for a sane and healthy world, if not for ourselves then for our children, and for future generations who we will never meet. 

If you’re still finding yourself shocked and shaken by the actions of our rulers, that’s a very healthy sign. It means they haven’t got you yet. It means they haven’t succeeded in snuffing out your flame. 

We’ve got to protect our sensitivity at all costs. We’ve got to maintain that visceral rejection of madness, because that’s what’s calling us home. That’s what’s calling us home to a healthy world. That’s what will guide our way as we fight our way there, one small, almost-insignificant victory at a time.

If they haven’t yet snuffed out your flame today, that’s one more small win for humanity. That’s one more tiny step toward health.

....

 https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-pandemic-treaty-amendments-international-health-regulations-enabling-global-health-dictatorship/5841152

The WHO Pandemic Treaty and Amendments to the International Health Regulations: Enabling a Global Health Dictatorship

Intended to form part of international law, preparations for the creation of a World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic treaty began in 2001. Far from strengthening the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to future pandemics as the latest draft of the text claims, its implementation could severely undermine democracy by limiting the ability of national parliaments to make crucial healthcare decisions in the best interests of their citizens. Aided by proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations of 2005, the treaty threatens to transform the WHO into a global health dictatorship.

The sweeping influence exerted by the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of revised International Health Regulations passed at a meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 2005. The decision-making body of the WHO, the WHA’s meetings are held annually in Geneva, Switzerland, and attended by delegations from the WHO’s 194 Member States.

Prior to 2005, the WHO had principally acted as a coordinator, assistant, or collaborator to the public health services and drug regulatory authorities of its Member States. But with the passing of the revised International Health Regulations, the WHO took on vast new powers that were unprecedented in the field of global health. These essentially enable it to decide when a public health emergency of international concern exists and to take key decisions regarding what measures should be implemented in response. Under the regulations, the WHO’s recommended actions can include vaccination, quarantine, isolation, drug treatment, and contact tracing, among others.

The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma

Now, however, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the road is being prepared for the WHO’s already considerable powers to be expanded still further. Particularly worryingly, the latest draft of the proposed amendments to the regulations shows that clauses that previously made their provisions non-binding are being reworded – effectively making them mandatory and giving the WHO real decision-making powers over its Member States. As such, claims that the planned pandemic treaty will not undermine national sovereignty are at best disingenuous, as its text has to be viewed in light of the increased authority that, if approved, will be given to the WHO under the amended International Health Regulations.

The WHO Thinks You Have “Too Much Information”

The growing concern over the WHO pandemic treaty isn’t simply that it could undermine democracy by preventing national parliaments from being able to make crucial healthcare decisions in the best interests of their citizens. Through introducing the term “infodemic,” the treaty seems to be attempting to prevent the spread of truthful information about science-based natural health approaches and dangerous experimental vaccines. Without citing any evidence, the text claims that having “too much information” available during a disease outbreak causes “confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health.” Suggesting who this wording is primarily intended to benefit – namely, the WHO itself – the text states that having too much information apparently “leads to mistrust in health authorities.” To counter this, “infodemic management, at local, national, regional and international levels,” is proposed.

The pandemic treaty also dramatically expands the WHO’s areas of interest. Through what it terms a “One Health approach,” the global body now intends to be able to take decisions in health matters related to animals, ecosystems, and the environment. The treaty specifically refers to “taking action on climate change,” for example. Several observers have suggested that with these extended powers, the WHO could potentially declare an environmental or climate emergency and enforce lockdowns.

Given the global body’s close links to Bill Gates and the pharma industry, and the hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding it receives from them, there is a growing worldwide recognition that this looming power grab represents a fundamental threat to democracy. At the very least, the increasing transfer of powers to the WHO raises important questions regarding national sovereignty and personal liberty.

Ultimately, if its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the WHO has sold its soul to corporate interests and cannot be trusted to take important decisions on global health. It is surely in all of our interests to demand that our national lawmakers do not sign away the sovereignty that the WHO is seeking.

....

https://bracingviews.com/2023/11/20/15000-bombs-equivalent-to-two-hiroshimas/

15,000 Bombs Equivalent to Two Hiroshimas

The Israeli Annihilation of Gaza

After dropping 6000 bombs in six days, the Israeli Air Force has now reached the staggering sum of at least 15,000 bombs dropped on densely populated areas of Gaza. The bomb tonnage is already equivalent to two Hiroshimas, notes Joshua Frank at TomDispatch. As he puts it:

[W]ell over 25,000 tons of bombs had already been dropped on Gaza by early November, the equivalent of two Hiroshima-style nukes (without the radiation). Under such circumstances, a nuclear-capable Israel that blatantly flouts international law could prove a clear and present danger, not only to defenseless Palestinians but to a world already in ever more danger and disarray.

Israel is the only power in the Middle East with nuclear weapons; it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the right-wing government of Netanyahu would choose to use one or more if cornered.

Netanyahu’s goal seems clear: make Gaza uninhabitable to Palestinians through a combination of massive bombing, blockades (water, food, medical supplies, and other essentials), and invasion and occupation. Palestinians are to be “pushed” into the Sinai Desert, with Gaza absorbed into Israel. All this is being justified in the name of neutralizing Hamas, a terrorist organization that has no ability to hurt Israel in a major way. (The brutal attacks of October 7th were a one-off made more brutal by Israeli helicopter gunships whose counterattacks killed friendlies as well as the Hamas attackers.)

In the name of destroying Hamas, Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza so it can be absorbed into Israel. Apparently, there are enormous gas reserves off Gaza, possibly worth $500 billion, which were to be shared between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. With the Palestinians either dead, severely wounded, or evicted from Gaza, Israel will likely claim total ownership over those gas fields. Israel may yet become a major gas supplier to Europe, replacing much of the gas lost when Putin blew up his own gas pipelines to Germany. (Just kidding: America did that, as President Biden promised he would.)

Meanwhile, Joe Biden penned an op-ed to the Washington Post equating Hamas with Putin as “pure, unadulterated evil.” Hamas is allegedly trying to wipe Israel off the map with its “ideology of destruction,” but of course Hamas has no military ability to do this, whereas Israel does indeed have the power to wipe Gaza off the map. So where does Biden see the future heading? Consider this passage:

There must be no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, and no reduction in territory. And after this war is over, the voices of Palestinian people and their aspirations must be at the center of post-crisis governance in Gaza.

As we strive for peace, Gaza and the West Bank should be reunited under a single governance structure, ultimately under a revitalized Palestinian Authority, as we all work toward a two-state solution.

He may as well wish for puppies and unicorns for everyone. Israel doesn’t want a two-state solution with a thriving Palestinian state. Netanyahu’s goal, to repeat myself, is clear: Gaza absorbed into Israel, with Palestinians displaced in another Nakba, along with the West Bank slowly absorbed into Israel as illegal Jewish settlements are extended.

This is, essentially, what Thucydides meant when he said: the strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must.

What Biden’s op-ed was really about was justifying his $105 billion package in giveaways, mainly for Ukraine and Israel, with more than half that money flowing to U.S. weapons makers, the merchants of death or, as Biden calls them, job creators. In short, Biden celebrates the creation of a few jobs in America in the name of killing tens of thousands of Russians and Palestinians with American-made weaponry paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Biden calls that “democracy” in action, the work of the world’s “essential nation” in contrast to the “murderous nihilism” of Hamas.

“Murderous nihilism”? Well, as we used to say as kids, it takes one to know one.

....

https://www.oftwominds.com/blognov23/renters-move11-23.html

What Happens When Millions of Renters Can No Longer Afford High Rents and Move Back Home?

Recency bias can stretch back 40 years. It's been over 40 years since the U.S. experienced a deep recession (what I call a "real recession") which is characterized by elevated inflation, interest rates, yields, unemployment, defaults and bankruptcies, none of which can be reversed with air-drops of "free money" because higher inflation, rates and yields all limit central bank money-printing and fiscal "free money" via deficit spending.

Without air-drops of trillions of dollars in "free money", the accumulated excesses of the economy have to sort themselves out the hard way via defaults, bankruptcies, insolvencies, layoffs, tightening credit and reduced spending / consumption.

The last time this burn-off of excesses could no longer be pushed forward occurred in 1980-82, the deepest downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Few remember the 1980-82 recession and even fewer think a recurrence is even possible. The dead-wood of excesses never get burned off, they just pile higher with each central bank-fiscal bailout / "free money" air-drop.

Recessions which burn off excesses act as catalysts for profound social, financial and economic shifts. Up until the recession, everyone assumes the current situation is permanent and forever. This is the equivalent of assuming a forest piled high with deadwood will never catch fire.

By way of example, consider that the relatively mild dot-com implosion recession of 2000-02 led to 100,000 residents of the San Francisco Bay Area moving away to lower-cost climes because once the layoffs swept through the dot-com bloat, people could not longer afford the high rents and cost of living.

The situation now is far more precarious due to the spread of high rents from a few urban areas to virtually the entire nation. As a percentage of net income, the cost of living is far higher than it was in 2000. Given the nonsensical manner that official inflation is calculated (owners equivalent rent, etc.), statistics are untrustworthy measures. An apples-to-apples comparison of purchasing power of wages (i.e. what percentage of wages are required to pay rent, taxes, insurance, transportation, childcare, food, etc.) is the only accurate measure of the true impact of the soaring cost of living.

The consensus holds that soaring rents are the result of housing shortages. In other words, the demand for housing is so strong that landlords can charge a premium.

So what happens to the strong demand for rentals and the resulting high rents if millions of renters vacate their apartments and move in with other single households? This is precisely what happens in a recession in which millions lose their jobs (or have to take lower income work) and can no longer afford stratospheric rents.

The facts suggest that instead of a housing shortage, we have an enormous quantity of housing that is currently occupied by a single person--housing that could easily accommodate more occupants per unit.

To sketch out how this scenario could play out, let's start with some basic facts about America's housing stock, the age of the occupants and the number of single-person households. As shown on this chart courtesy of the Federal Reserve, there are 145 million housing units in the U.S.--85 million owner-occupied homes and condos, 44 million rented houses and apartments, and 16 million unoccupied dwellings, of which 7+ million are 2nd homes / vacation homes. The remaining 9 million unoccupied homes may be in the process of being sold or held off the market for various reasons, or they're abandoned or no longer livable due to obsolescence / decay.

Some might be in areas with poor employment options and so the demand is so low that vacancies abound.



Next, let's look at home ownership and one-person households. According to the Census Bureau, "There were 37.9 million one-person households, 29% of all U.S. households in 2022. In 1960, single-person households represented only 13% of all households." (There are about 132 million households in the U.S.)

The Census Bureau also reported that 46.4% of U.S. adults are single--that's 117.6 million unmarried Americans, "nearly every other adult aged 18 and over. This includes those who are divorced or widowed as well as those who have never married."

About 11% of these one-person households are 65 years of age or older, or about 14.65 million people.



As you might imagine, homeownership is skewed to the older population, as is ownership of homes without mortgages, i.e. homes owned free and clear.

According to How the Demographics Are Shaping the Housing Market, older Americans own almost 90% of all housing: The Silent Generation (78 and older) own 11.3%, Boomers (ages 59 to 77) own 43.5% and Gen X (ages 43 to 58) owns 32.5%. Some break the Boomers into Boomers I (ages 69-77) and Boomers II (ages 59-68).

We can thus project that a substantial percentage of individuals age 65 and older who are living alone own their own homes. It required a much more modest down payment and percentage of net income two or three generations ago to buy a home, and so it's to be expected that home ownership is heavily skewed to older cohorts who were able to buy homes with median incomes--something that is no longer possible for younger generations.

There are also millions of renters who live alone, some percentage of which might be persuaded to accept a roommate if their income/finances deteriorate. Of the 38 million single-person households, how many would welcome another occupant? Retirees with limited income might welcome paying boarders, and single elderly might offer free housing to younger family members in exchange for help around the house.

How many Boomers and Gen X homeowners would accept an adult child or grandchild moving home if financial conditions preclude any other option? Anecdotally, I see grandparents hosting a grandchild and her daughter, and I hear accounts of an elderly parent deeding their home to the adult child who moves back home and cares for the parent.

It is well within the realm of possibility that 10% of the roughly 40 million single-person households could vacate their rentals and move in with another single or into a large empty-nest home owned by parents are grandparents should conditions change and high rents are no longer affordable. That would leave about 10% of the rental housing unoccupied.

Although few believe it is even in the realm of possibility, in an extended downturn, 8 million renters could vacate now-unaffordable rentals for far more affordable living spaces in other dwellings. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, which in the case of unaffordable rents in a recession, we can modify to necessity is the mother of radically downsizing expenses by any means available.

Rents tend to be as stubborn as human nature. Landlords tend to believe the highest rent ever received is the "fair price," and the majority will cling to this fantasy long past the point at which a rational assessment of market conditions would suggest a 25% reduction in asking rent would be the bare minimum to snare a tenant for the vacant flat.

If the 2000-02 recession is any guide, tenants will cling on to their over-priced flats as long as possible, hoping for a job offer that never transpires. The unemployment checks aren't enough, temp gigs dry up, savings run out and the inability to continue paying sky-high rent finally forces a move.

No one remembers what happens in a deep, prolonged recession, and we're long overdue to find out what happens. What's no longer affordable is eventually jettisoned, including high-rent homes and apartments.