Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

British Columbia Premier David Eby has been caught in yet another controversy involving the transfer of public land to First Nations, and the public apparently was not supposed to know what was being negotiated. Confidential government documents revealed plans involving approximately 400 parcels of Crown land, along with proposed changes to the Forest Act that would reduce compensation to forestry companies losing their timber rights. The documents emerged just days before British Columbia’s October 24 election.

Eby’s government has forced forestry companies to sign nondisclosure agreements to examine proposed changes affecting their own operations. Eby insists that the transfers fulfill existing treaty and reconciliation commitments and that reducing compensation would save taxpayers money. But since when does saving money justify changing the rules for property and resource rights behind closed doors? The government cannot simply announce that an obligation is too expensive and decide that somebody else should absorb the cost.

Companies could receive no compensation when less than 5% of their existing logging rights were transferred. Imagine running a business, investing in equipment, employing workers, and making long-term commitments based on rights granted by the government, only to discover that the same government wants to reduce or eliminate compensation when those rights are withdrawn. This is how political uncertainty destroys investment.

British Columbia has been down this road before. In 2024, Eby’s government attempted to amend the Land Act to expand shared decision-making over Crown land with First Nations. The proposal generated such opposition that the government abandoned it. Then came the Shíshálh agreement involving approximately six square kilometres of public land and $104 million, followed by the Haida agreement recognizing Aboriginal title over Haida Gwaii. These arrangements involve different legal histories and obligations, and Indigenous title rights cannot simply be dismissed. Nevertheless, the public deserves to understand precisely what is being transferred, how existing rights will be protected, and what the long-term financial consequences will be. The secrecy surrounding these negotiations has become an issue in its own right.

I addressed this growing property rights controversy in my 2026 Canadian Report, particularly the Cowichan land dispute and the uncertainty surrounding land ownership in British Columbia. Property rights are the foundation of investment and economic development. If people cannot determine whether the rights they purchase, inherit, or develop will remain secure, the value of those assets becomes increasingly uncertain. Banks must consider the enforceability of collateral, businesses must reassess long-term investments, and homeowners begin questioning the security of what is often their largest financial asset. There are important legal distinctions between privately owned property, Crown land, Indigenous title, and forestry tenures. But those distinctions make transparency more necessary, not less.

British Columbia is already struggling with the consequences of high housing costs, weak investment incentives, and pressure on its resource industries. Forestry is not some insignificant business that politicians can casually sacrifice for political purposes. It supports employment, transportation, manufacturing, and communities that depend upon access to timber. Eby’s government claims that reducing compensation protects taxpayers, but forcing private businesses to absorb losses does not eliminate the economic cost. It merely transfers that cost to another part of society.

There is a broader issue here that extends well beyond British Columbia. Canada possesses enormous natural resources, yet its political establishment has repeatedly made those resources more difficult to develop. Alberta has fought Ottawa over energy policy and federal interference, while British Columbia has created its own obstacles to investment in forestry, mining, and infrastructure. Governments continually promise economic growth while undermining the legal certainty and confidence necessary to attract capital. They seem to believe that resources will somehow produce tax revenue regardless of how many restrictions, political negotiations, and regulatory burdens they impose upon the industries responsible for developing them.

The situation becomes even more revealing when we look at Alberta. Albertans have just voted against pursuing separation from Canada, with approximately 75% choosing to remain in the federation. Mark Carney is celebrating this as a victory for national unity, but the underlying grievances have not magically disappeared. Alberta remains an energy producing province that has repeatedly clashed with Ottawa over resource development, taxation, and environmental regulation.

Canada is heading toward an increasingly serious confrontation over property rights, resource ownership, and the authority of government. British Columbia cannot expect businesses to invest billions while threatening to change the terms under which those investments were made. Alberta has chosen to remain, but the frustrations that produced the separatist movement are still there. Eby’s land controversy is another example of why confidence in government is deteriorating. Once people begin to question whether their property and contractual rights will be respected, the damage extends far beyond any single land transfer. Capital will simply look elsewhere.

A government should never become so accustomed to exercising authority that it forgets whom it is supposed to represent. The Canadian people have every right to know what is being negotiated over their land, resources, and economic future before decisions become effectively irreversible.

COMMENT: sorry marti but The article “Poland Refuses to Surrender Its Borders to Brussels” is a misleading piece that ignores the harsh realities on the ground. To present Poland as a sovereign fortress that is successfully resisting external pressures is to look at the situation through rose-tinted glasses. A sober, clear-eyed assessment reveals a different picture.
First, the claim of border control is undermined by the scale of economic immigration. While the number of new work permits has fallen recently—from 144,000 in the first half of 2025 to 69,000 in the same period of 2026—this is not a story of a closed border. It is a story of a massive, ongoing influx that has been poorly managed for years. For a long time, hundreds of thousands of permits were issued to people from unknown backgrounds, creating a vast, opaque labor market. The recent tightening of procedures and the introduction of the Entry/Exit system only confirm that the previous system was a leaky sieve. The article conveniently ignores this legacy of uncontrolled, often unverified, migration.

Second, the article completely omits the dire state of the Polish IT sector, which is a crucial indicator of the country’s economic health. The truth is that the “Polish IT eldorado is over”. Layoffs have become a permanent feature of the landscape, not a temporary blip. In Kraków alone, 40% of all collective redundancies in 2025 were in the IT industry. The situation has escalated in 2026: GSK announced the liquidation of its IT department in Poznań, putting over 500 jobs at risk and moving the work to India. Companies like Nordea, Fujitsu, and Aptiv have also conducted significant layoffs. This is not a picture of a resilient economy; it is a picture of a sector in deep crisis, with tens of thousands of jobs affected.

Finally, the article’s triumphalist tone is detached from the broader economic anxiety. While the unemployment rate remains low by EU standards, the registered unemployment rate has been rising, reaching 6.0% in January 2026, up 0.6 percentage points year-on-year. This, combined with massive layoffs in key sectors like IT, suggests a labor market that is far more fragile than the article would have you believe.
The article is not an objective report; it is a piece of wishful thinking. It is time for the commentators and “informers” to look at the facts with a sober eye. Poland is not a fortress holding the line; it is a country grappling with the consequences of years of uncontrolled migration and a profound structural crisis in one of its most important modern industries. To pretend otherwise is not patriotism—it is denial.

-A

REPLY: You have raised three entirely different issues and somehow concluded that they disprove my argument about Poland defending its borders. Poland is still very much a member of the European Union. It is subject to EU treaties, regulations, and court decisions, and it faces the same economic pressures as the rest of Europe. Nobody suggested otherwise. What distinguishes Poland is that it still has political leaders willing to stand up publicly and demand secure borders, defend their national traditions, and preserve their culture rather than simply surrender every decision to Brussels.

First, you are confusing legal immigration with compulsory migrant relocation. There is a world of difference between a skilled immigrant who applies for a work permit, passes the required checks, obtains employment, pays taxes, and contributes to the economy, and an individual who enters illegally, has not been adequately vetted, and becomes dependent upon taxpayer-funded assistance. Education alone does not determine someone’s worth or whether they will contribute to society, but skills, employment, security screening, and financial self-sufficiency are perfectly legitimate considerations in immigration policy. Poland has accepted foreign workers and enormous numbers of Ukrainians. The question is whether Poland should retain the right to determine whom it admits or whether Brussels should make that decision for it. If its work permit system has been abused, that is a failure Poland must correct. It does not justify handing more authority to the EU.

Compare Poland’s position with Germany under Angela Merkel, which opened its doors to enormous numbers of asylum seekers in 2015, or Sweden, which pursued generous asylum policies before eventually tightening its immigration rules amid growing political and social concerns. Those governments made decisions that profoundly affected their societies, and their citizens are still debating the consequences. Poland’s leaders have been far more outspoken about the importance of integration, national identity, public safety, and preserving Polish traditions. You can disagree with those priorities, but there is nothing unreasonable about a country wanting to maintain its cultural character. Immigration should benefit the receiving nation as well as the immigrant. It should not be treated as an obligation imposed regardless of public consent or the capacity to accommodate newcomers.

Second, you bring up the problems in Poland’s IT sector, layoffs, and companies transferring operations to India. What does any of that have to do with Poland’s refusal to accept compulsory EU migrant quotas? I have written extensively about how capital moves internationally in search of lower costs and better returns. European companies have been relocating operations, manufacturing, and technology services because of the cost of labor, regulation, energy, and changing global competition. Poland cannot escape those forces merely because its politicians take a tougher position on immigration. Furthermore, Poland remains subject to EU regulations and the broader economic policies that have undermined competitiveness throughout Europe. A country can defend its borders and still suffer from terrible economic decisions, outsourcing, or a downturn in a particular industry. These are not mutually exclusive.

Third, you cite rising unemployment as though I had declared Poland immune to recession. I never made any such claim. Poland is part of the European economy, and its businesses are affected by European demand, international capital flows, and the policies coming out of Brussels. If unemployment rises, that should make the government more concerned about labor conditions and the economic impact of immigration, not less. Importing additional labor without regard to domestic employment conditions, qualifications, or the costs of public services is hardly a solution to unemployment.

The difference is that Poland still has leaders such as Dominik Tarczyński who are willing to confront Brussels publicly rather than pretend that every immigration policy coming from the European Commission must be accepted without question. Poland has not escaped the EU’s political and economic problems, nor has it solved every problem within its own borders. Its leaders are operating within the same European system as everyone else. Yet they continue demanding that border security, national identity, and the interests of Polish citizens be taken seriously. That is what I was praising.

You have completely misread the article if you believe I was portraying Poland as some impenetrable fortress or a perfect European nation without migrants. Poland remains firmly within the EU and is subject to its regulations and political pressures. I have never suggested otherwise. In fact, Poland’s geographical position makes it one of the most vulnerable nations in Europe. If this confrontation with Russia escalates into a broader European war, Poland will be among the first thrown into the fire, regardless of what the bureaucrats in Brussels promise. I am certainly not suggesting Poland has escaped the problems confronting Europe. I am applauding those Polish leaders who still have the courage to defend their nation’s borders, traditions, and sovereignty while so many of their European counterparts have willingly surrendered those responsibilities. There is an enormous difference, and if you came away believing I was claiming Poland is some perfect nation free of immigration or EU interference, then you missed the entire point.

QUESTION: The book you are handing out at this year’s WEC is on Julius Caesar, not Socrates, your mentor. Is there a reason you chose Caesar over Socrates?

L

ANSWER: I named my computer after Socrates because he was sentenced to death for knowing too much. I paid my respects in his cell, where he died. He proved that knowledge is dangerous when it threatens control. Those in power prefer silence, for it is the strongest language of all. Silence does not deny; it conceals. Even the movie the Forecaster gave the government the opportunity to respond. The chose silence. That is noted in the credits.

When it comes to knowledge, paper and internet postings can be destroyed and scrubbed, but a whisper can span centuries. Those in power will confess only just enough to retain credibility, but they usually point the finger at someone else. I learned that history forgives what it is not allowed to remember thanks to censorship. I discovered that when I stumbled upon Herbert Hoover’s Memoirs. What he discussed about the Sovereign Debt Defaults of 1931 was indeed something history was not allowed to remember.

The story we have all been taught in school and Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, all present Caesar as this ruthless dictator taken from the writings of Cicero, who is the father of ancient fake news.

When Cicero met his death, because of his persistent fake news, they cut off his hands and nailed them to the Rostrum. They did not do that to Cato or Brutus and Caesar wept when the Egyptians present him with the head of Pompey the Great. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the people cheered because there was a serious debt crisis, real estate values had collapsed, and he did not have to fight his way to Rome. Pompey and the Senate fled to Greece because the people did not support them.

This is the true account that nobody wanted to tell hoping that history forgot what they did not want to report. This was about pervasive corruption where the Senate would assassinate anyone who dared to challenge their authority. This is a story of unimaginable political corruption and just for the record, the people DID NOT vote for Senators – they were appointed. The Senate was UNELECTED!!! There was no democratic process to vote them out of power as we see in Europe and the Neocons today who have infiltrated our present Republic. This lays out the truth from a number of contemporary sources other than Cicero, which would be like asking Hilary Clinton to write the biography of Donald Trump.

QUESTION: Why do you say there is a time bomb ticking in Alberta?

Jeff

ANSWER: Separatist movements globally typically have economic demands; they usually also involve religious, linguistic, or nationalist factors. However, some separatist movements emerge for economic reasons. We saw that in the US Civil War, when the South seceded. That was all about economics, where they cited the slavery issue and eliminating their workforce. Keep in mind that this was about 50 years before the invention of farm machinery.

The “glue” holding Alberta within Canada is primarily the clear mainstream public opinion of Alberta residents and their emotional attachment to Canadian identity, rather than economic, religious, linguistic, or even nationalist issues. Although separatist sentiment exists, it remains a minority. In the October 2026 referendum, approximately 76% of voters supported continuing to remain in Canada. Carney fostered that claiming Trump wanted to tale Canada as the 51st state. Constitutionally, that would be impossible since that would change the balance of power in the Senate and the Democrats would insist on also admitting Puerto Rico, Guam, and Washington, DC. But Carney successfully gained power by using Trump, who was foolish enough to even talk about a 51st state.

Important financial backers of the movement include oil and gas company executives in Calgary, and the movement envisions an independent Alberta becoming an “oil state” like Qatar or the UAE, free from federal regulation.

The idea that Alberta’s energy wealth subsidizes other provinces is a core grievance of the Alberta separatist movement. What will happen will be the same response to a war with Russia where energy prices rise dramatically into 2028 as took place during the ’70s and OPEC Crisis. During the oil crisis of the 1970s, the tax proposals under discussion primarily targeted windfall profits of oil companies (Windfall Profit Tax). With the prospect of oil reach $200 in the year ahead, this will become a sticking issue that resurfaces. There are no pipelines from Alberta going East. They still import oil from Middle East. Carney will resort to Windfall Profits Tax to compensate the East.

As they say in OPERA, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings, for she usually has the best voice.

Albertans voted overwhelmingly to remain in Canada in the October 20, 2026 referendum, with over 76% supporting the option for Alberta to stay a province of Canada. This outcome reflects a serious problem that will explode in the coming years. Alberta’s grievances with federal policies will now get much worse. The Alberta separatist movement has gained attention in recent years, driven by frustrations over federal energy policies and perceived inequities in resource distribution.

Alberta has long felt marginalized by federal decisions, particularly regarding its oil and gas industry. The movement has fluctuated in popularity, with some polls indicating significant support for secession at various times. However, the recent referendum indicates a shift in sentiment, but in reality, there was no way Alberta would be allowed to vote their way out for the vote would have been rigged just as the EU has interfered in every election in the EU to retain a centralized power..

While the referendum result suggests a strong desire to remain in Canada, the underlying issues that fueled the separatist sentiment remain unresolved. The is the ticking time bomb the ultimately will explode as it even did in the USSR. The vote does not eliminate the possibility of future discussions about Alberta’s autonomy or its relationship with the federal government.

The ongoing issues will continue to brew and grow larger as we move into 2028. Frustrations with federal policies persist, indicating that the separatist debate may continue in different forms. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who called the referendum, supports remaining in Canada but acknowledges the need for addressing provincial concerns. That is not a realistic avenue for the vote has rejected the separatist movement and the federal government has now won and they will NOT provide any reasonable compromise. Why? They won!

Carney stated he is “open” to constitutional reform, but emphasized that this requires building broad consensus and that current priorities should be on “cooperative federalism” and resolving issues such as immigration through cooperation with provinces, without the need for constitutional amendments. The kiss of death is for Carney to be put on the cover of the ECONOMIST who portray Trump, Putin, and Xi as the axis of the evil empire and hail Zelensky should rule the world. Because Carney has won office by demonizing Trump, the rest of the world should do the same.

Cyclically, we should not expect separation to succeed before 2029 going into 2031. This is by no means a isolated separatist movement. The EU is not likely to last much beyond 2029. We are seeing separatist movements throughout Europe and they are beginning in the USA as well. Look at Canada, Justin Trudeau and Carney live in a fantasy world. The World Bank puts Canada’s 2025 GDP per person at US$55,698. Mississippi, the poorest state in America, sits around US$55,877. New York State stands at $123,369 per person. The GDP of the EU stands at €18.8 trillion with 452 million people is €41,600 or  $48,867.52. and Carney wants to join the EU? Is this so Canada can bailout the EU and impose a military draft to defend his globalist dreams?

Carney has advocated for a “unique alliance” based on shared values being anti-Trump and complementary strengths, particularly in areas like defense, critical minerals, and trade. The concept of “associate membership” was floated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Indeed, 2026 was an important year, We do not see unemployment declining below that of 2022. The risk is an escalation in unemployment into 2029. Perhaps Carney can sell fire-extinguished to Europe to lower unemployment.

Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility. They were told it would lead to this and they didn't listen.

I pray that France, a beautiful… https://t.co/y39o3JGlWh

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 18, 2026

France is being torn apart by criminals who have discovered that a demonstration provides the perfect opportunity to loot businesses, burn public buildings, and terrorize entire communities. The media continues to refer to these events as “student protests,” but what the hell does setting fire to a town hall have to do with education? The historic 19th-century city hall in Limoges was gutted by flames, its roof collapsed, and rioters attacked municipal buildings in Marseille. Shops were ransacked in Paris, vehicles were burned, police were assaulted, and business owners were left surveying the destruction of everything they had worked to build. Much of this is captured on video. These are criminal acts committed under the cover of demonstrations, and calling the perpetrators students does nothing to excuse the destruction.

Nearly 2,400 people were arrested following the October 17 unrest, and authorities reported damage affecting at least 3,000 businesses. More than 1,500 shops were reportedly ransacked. There were peaceful demonstrators protesting legitimate grievances over the cost of living and deteriorating schools, but violent groups exploited those gatherings to steal, vandalize, and attack public institutions. French police themselves described people arriving later in the day for the purpose of looting. Small business owners who had nothing to do with government policy are now left with shattered storefronts, stolen merchandise, insurance claims, and lost income. These are the people who employ their neighbors and pay the taxes that support the very public services France claims it cannot afford.

France has fallen. pic.twitter.com/SaFGWqOclQ

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 18, 2026

Macron’s government has spent years lecturing everyone about democracy while presiding over mounting debt, declining economic confidence, and a population increasingly furious over the cost of living. Now schools have been damaged, teachers and principals assaulted, and children deprived of their education. The politicians cannot even guarantee that a school will remain open or a shopkeeper can operate without having his property destroyed. France already faces enormous fiscal problems, yet the taxpayer will ultimately be forced to finance the repairs while the businesses that were looted may never recover. How much more destruction can an economy absorb when productive people are already struggling to survive?

Our Civil Unrest Model identified 2026 as a major target for widespread unrest in Europe years in advance. A reader in France wrote that his brother’s store had been completely looted and destroyed. This is the human cost of these events that disappears when journalists reduce everything to a discussion about demonstrations. The model also indicates that the unrest could continue into November, although there may be a temporary reprieve. The economic pressures have not disappeared, particularly the rising cost of energy, which is feeding inflation and further undermining living standards.

What concerns me even more is that our Civil Unrest and International War models are aligning during the same period. I recently explained that this is the first time I have seen both models converge in this manner. We have a Panic Cycle in Civil Unrest in 2029, while the War Cycle continues escalating toward 2027. The Economic Confidence Model also points toward the broader political and economic instability unfolding into 2028 and the major turning point in 2032. These are model projections, not guarantees that every country will experience the same events, but the convergence is particularly troubling as Europe confronts rising energy costs, sovereign debt problems, and growing separatist pressures.

A left-wing French woman joined the student protests but was horrified when the second and third-generation migrants she was with started looting stores. She screamed “This isn’t the cause”

They pushed her aside, told her to shut up and said they had “urgent shopping” to do pic.twitter.com/GEWhMCUBSF

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2026

We are seeing unrest beyond France, including tensions in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Albania. The common thread is deteriorating confidence in governments that continue demanding more money while ordinary people experience declining living standards. I have explained that the combination of war, rising energy costs, fiscal deterioration, and political polarization is placing enormous pressure upon European society. France is already struggling with debt and economic stagnation, and destroying businesses only accelerates the flight of productive capital. Investors do not need to wait for an official declaration of economic collapse when they can watch buildings burning and businesses being looted.

Our models point to further instability ahead, and the political establishment continues behaving as though another speech from Macron will somehow restore confidence. France sacrificed the safety of its nation to appease the globalist Build Back Better open border agenda. Now the politicians are shocked that the invaders have not only failed to assimilate but are eager to topple the current regime.

? JUST IN: While France burns, Polish Member of European Parliament Dominik Tarczynski is WALKING THROUGH Krakow LATE at night, showing all of Europe it's PERFECTLY CALM

"Look how safe we are. Churches are safe. Because we did not let them in. Zero means zero. 'Be like Poland'…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 18, 2026

Poland has become one of the most outspoken defenders of national control over immigration within the European Union. Polish Member of the European Parliament Dominik Tarczyński recently walked through a Polish city at night, contrasting its peaceful streets with the scenes of destruction coming out of France. “Look how safe we are. Churches are safe. Because we did not let them in. Zero means zero. ‘Be like Poland’ means be brave.” His message was aimed directly at Brussels, which has spent years attempting to impose a common migration system upon countries that do not necessarily agree on whom they should admit. Poland has insisted that decisions involving its borders, national security, and the composition of its population cannot simply be handed over to European institutions.

The Polish people have good reason to understand the importance of sovereignty. Their country was partitioned by foreign powers in the eighteenth century, disappeared from the map of Europe for more than a century, endured Nazi occupation, and subsequently fell under Soviet domination. Poland did not regain its full political independence from communist rule until 1989. That experience helps explain why arguments about surrendering national authority to Brussels provoke such strong reactions. The country spent generations struggling to govern itself, and immigration policy has become another arena in which the boundaries of European integration are being contested.

Poland’s confrontation with the EU began during the 2015 migration crisis when Brussels attempted to distribute asylum seekers among member states through mandatory relocation quotas. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic refused to comply, and the European Court of Justice ruled against them in 2020. The legal defeat did not settle the political disagreement. Polish governments continued arguing that immigration and asylum decisions must account for national security, public consent, and the ability of local communities to absorb newcomers. Brussels viewed the relocation mechanism as a matter of shared responsibility, while Poland challenged the idea that solidarity could be imposed through compulsory admissions.

Poland has demonstrated that border security involves more than political speeches. Along its frontier with Belarus, Warsaw constructed physical barriers and expanded surveillance and military deployments after accusing the Belarusian government of facilitating migrant crossings as a form of political pressure. The European Union itself has increasingly acknowledged the problem of migration being used as an instrument of hybrid warfare. Poland’s position has been that an external border cannot remain credible if authorities are unable to control unauthorized entry. At the same time, border enforcement must operate within applicable asylum and human-rights obligations, a continuing source of legal controversy.

Poland’s position has become more significant in 2026 because the country’s border policy is no longer confined to speeches from opposition politicians. On September 18, the Polish government extended restrictions on asylum applications at the Belarusian border for another 60 days, the eighth extension since the measures were introduced in March 2025. Warsaw argues that Belarus has deliberately facilitated migrant crossings to destabilize Poland and the European Union. The measures remain controversial because of concerns about access to asylum, but they demonstrate how seriously Poland regards the border as a matter of national security.

Even more revealing was Poland’s intervention at the September 26 migration summit in Munich. Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński told representatives from 18 European countries that the EU Migration Pact did not go far enough to address the challenges confronting Europe’s external borders. Poland was no longer simply resisting policies developed in Brussels. Its government was actively promoting stronger enforcement measures for the rest of Europe to consider. That is a remarkable development given the years of confrontation between Warsaw and European institutions over immigration.

There is also a financial dimension that Brussels cannot ignore. Poland has accommodated approximately 1.5 million Ukrainian nationals, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum. The European Commission itself recognized the cumulative migration pressures facing Poland, allowing it to seek relief from contributions under the 2026 solidarity mechanism. This complicates the familiar accusation that Poland refuses to share responsibility for migration. Warsaw’s argument is that it has already absorbed substantial humanitarian and financial obligations and should retain discretion over additional commitments. As for other nations? Poland is not disillusioned to believe that every culture can live in harmony together. “We know what jihadists are capable of. We do not know what second or third generation of so-called refugees will do. Well, actually we do know… we can see what is happening in France,” Tarczyński noted.

The disagreement over migration ultimately reaches far beyond border fences and asylum quotas. Poland’s experience illustrates the unresolved question at the center of European integration: how much authority should national governments retain when Brussels adopts common policies that conflict with domestic priorities? The EU argues that shared external borders require cooperation and mutual responsibility. Poland insists that cooperation cannot eliminate national accountability for security, immigration, and public order. As economic pressures and political tensions increase across Europe, that dispute is unlikely to disappear. Poland has made clear that it intends to remain an active participant in determining Europe’s future rather than simply accepting every decision made in Brussels.

QUESTION: You are right about the government, no matter what they call themselves. Macron’s address blamed Trump for fuel prices and said he had no part in it. Yet he has supported Zelensky and the war with Russia, and as you said, he avoids responsibility for everything.

I see your 2032 coming. I didn’t when you were here in Paris. Now, it seems too far away, and it needs to come forward fast.

Thank you for the education

PGR

ANSWER: I fully appreciate that. Five years ago, they would hear me say the road ahead comes to an end in 2032 and they were often not convinced. Today, you have to be blind not to see what is unfolding.

Here’s a video of Macron addressing the nation and saying that he understands that people are angry because of the price of fuel. He goes on to say:

“The price of fuel is going to a higher price, which is increased because of what is happening in the Persian Gulf, a war that France was not part of.”

He selectively pushes the burden for the increase in gas prices only to Trump and the Iran war, when Russia-Ukraine has definitely had a big impact in the price of gas in Europe that all began with their sanction on Russia and the decision to pay higher prices for fuel to punish Russia?

Next month’s US elections will extend far beyond November and into the 2028 presidential race. The Democratic candidates are already saying who they will throw out of government and they promise to check President Trump during his final two years and pursue investigations. Democratic leaders have explicitly said they intend to force Pete Hegseth out of the Defense Department. The most direct statement comes from House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said:

“One of the first things we’re going to do in the majority, we’re going to run Pete Hegseth out of town.”

Republicans admit that Democratic control would mean obstruction and efforts to harass and impeach Trump at every second of every day. Nobody cares about the country. Politics has degenerated into a grudge match. Trump should stand up and advocate World War III, then maybe the Democrats will push for peace. Whatever Trump says, they MUST take the opposite position.

The Democratic Party’s mainstream stance is indeed generally “pro-Zelensky, anti-Putin,” and Hillary Clinton’s public accusation that Putin interfered in the 2016 election and caused her defeat is a typical manifestation of this stance. However, it should be noted that this is a broad partisan consensus, not a direct causal relationship stemming from “Hillary blaming Putin.” Little do they know that Hillary was a Neocon, created the fake Dossier against Trump, handed it the Neocon McCain, who handed it to James Comey all to pretend this came from a Republican. Neocons are NOT loyal to the country or the people. Only to their personal agendas.

Anyone who thinks voting for a Democrat will somehow make everything better and solve the national debt, fuel prices, or inflation, are just idiots. There is NOBODY in Washington on either side who is interested in really setting the country right. Everything is a compromise at best. This is a cover from a report published back in 1986. The ONLY way to ever get reform is a politician has only one term. Then and only then would they do the right thing. Otherwise, they have to take money from lobbyists to run for the next election. One time in and out!

If the Democrats take both houses, what you will see beyond perhaps fist-fights like the good-old days for our entertainment like in 1798,  but the Democrats will destroy the economy as you see wild proposals from Elizabeth Warren and the Progressive led by AOC. They will so screw up the United States, that this is what will be needed to get to 2032. People will have to see that it does NOT matter you you vote for, the system is broken.

From virtually the beginning of the nation, there have been brawls in Congress. The first one to be widely noted was that of February 15, 1798, when Roger Griswold, a US House Representative from Connecticut, attacked Matthew Lyon and began to beat him with a stick. Griswold, a Federalist, walked up to Lyon’s desk hitting him on the head and shoulders with his hickory walking stick. Lyon, who was a Republican from Vermont, responded by grabbing a pair of fireplace tongs and defending himself beating Griswold in return.

They then began to just punch each other in a fistfight until they were pulled apart. That is how heated the arguments would get between the Federalists who demanded a central government with power over states and the Republicans who argued for State’s Rights. We are still plagued with this issue and it will ultimately lead to the collapse of the United States just as centralized control led to the collapse of Communism.

Four out of six of our models for the 2028 election point to the right, which you are starting to see in France and Germany as well as Italy. The Democrats will move far left to their Socialist-Marxist Dream and Elizabeth Warren wants wealth taxes, dramatic increases in social security, and they want to raise taxes like never before.

This will result is a wild 2028 election and the prospect of the USA also splitting like the Soviet Union. I have never seen the computer come up with a model that projects in excess of 70%. That is warning that CONFIDENCE is collapsing. The country has been so polarized, there is honestly no putting this back together again. Even in Alberta, they will surely rig the Referendum for Remain. The frustration with Carney taking Canada into the EU and drafting for WWIII to protect Brussels, will end up fostering civil unrest in Canada as well. Government sees itself as a monarchy and the people are ignored.

Brawls on Capital Hill are not so rare. After State’s Rights came Slavery as the next major dividing issue. In a speech in May 1856, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner spent five hours on the floor denouncing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He said the compromise bill leaving slavery in those territories to be decided by local popular vote was outrageous. He called out Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, who was the chief architect of the act, a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal.” He went on to describe Andrew Butler of South Carolina, who pushed the compromise, as “the harlot, Slavery,” that he “discharged the loose expectoration of his speech” at the very thought of embracing her. That was a personal dig for Butler was known to lisp and drool.

Two days later, on May 22nd, 1856, Sumner was sitting at his desk preparing copies of the speech he intended to distribute around the nation. A cousin of Butler’s who was also a member from South Carolina, Preston Brooks,  entered the Senate floor. Brooks approached Senator Sumner and told him that he had read his words with “as much impartiality as was possible,” and then began to beat him over the head with his walking stick. Sumner collapsed in a pool of blood and, in the days that followed, nearly died. The news of the confrontation can be found in countless newspapers around the nation.

Then on February 6th, 1858, perhaps the most infamous floor brawl in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives erupted again over the Kansas Territory’s pro-slavery. The debate continued late into the night of February 5-6. Then just before 2 a.m., Pennsylvania Republican Galusha Grow and South Carolina Democrat Laurence Keitt exchanged insults, which were then followed by physical blows.

“In an instant the House was in the greatest possible confusion,” was being reported by the press. Suddenly, over 30 Members jumped into the brawl turning it into a Western Style bar fight or melee.

So cheep up, today may be the best day in your life, for politicis always has the endearing fate of always making to morrow worse that it is today.