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.

While the neocons remain obsessed with Russia and Iran, President Erdogan has been steadily positioning Turkey to become the dominant military power in the Middle East. Reuters has now reported that Turkey is preparing to seek parliamentary authorization to deploy military personnel to Saudi Arabia under a new defense agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This is an extraordinary development that deserves far more attention than it is receiving. Turkey is a NATO member with the alliance’s second-largest military by active personnel, yet it is now constructing a separate military arrangement in the Middle East that could fundamentally alter the balance of power.

The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement was signed in August 2026 by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Ankara submitted the agreement to parliament for ratification on October 20, and officials are preparing a separate mandate permitting Turkish personnel to operate in Saudi Arabia. The agreement treats an external attack against one member as an attack against all three, creating a mutual-defense commitment outside NATO. Turkish officials insist that the initial deployment will involve technical specialists, air defense systems, electronic warfare, intelligence sharing, and other defensive capabilities rather than offensive combat operations.

Nevertheless, we are watching Turkey establish a formal military presence in Saudi Arabia while simultaneously joining a Saudi-led effort to secure navigation through the Red Sea. This is no insignificant military cooperation agreement. It is the beginning of a new regional security structure.

The Ottoman Empire ruled much of the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe for centuries before its final collapse following World War I. Its formal dissolution was completed with the abolition of the sultanate in 1922. Erdoğan has repeatedly invoked Ottoman history and promoted Turkey as a leading power within the Islamic world. Turkey was positioning itself to reassert its influence over regions that had once been governed from Constantinople.

Saudi Arabia is particularly significant because it is home to Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam. The Ottoman Empire once exercised authority over the Hejaz, and Turkish military personnel returning to Saudi Arabia under a mutual-defense arrangement carries enormous historical significance. Erdoğan is not sending an invading army to conquer Arabia. He is obtaining influence through military cooperation, weapons systems, and security commitments. That is how regional powers expand their reach without immediately resorting to territorial conquest. Saudi Arabia gains access to Turkish military technology and expertise, while Ankara gains a much stronger position in the Arabian Peninsula and the Red Sea. Pakistan’s participation adds another dimension because it possesses nuclear weapons, although this agreement does not automatically extend a nuclear guarantee to either partner.

Erdoğan has become one of Israel’s most vocal critics, and the two countries have competing interests in Syria and the broader Middle East. Turkey’s growing military cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will inevitably be examined in Jerusalem because it changes the strategic environment surrounding Israel. We are no longer dealing with the same regional balance that existed when Israel could concentrate primarily on Iran and its allied militias. Turkey possesses a far larger conventional military establishment than many of the regional actors Israel has confronted, along with an expanding domestic defense industry capable of producing drones, missiles, armored vehicles, and naval systems.

The NATO implications are equally important. Turkey controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles, providing access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. It occupies a geographical position that NATO cannot easily replace, and its military manpower exceeds that of every other NATO member except the United States. Yet Erdoğan has repeatedly demonstrated that Turkey will pursue its own national interests even when they conflict with Washington or Brussels.

Ankara purchased Russia’s S-400 air defense system despite American objections, maintained relations with Moscow during the Ukraine war, and has increasingly pursued independent diplomatic and military arrangements. I discussed the possibility of Turkey breaking with NATO as far back as my writings on the 2026 geopolitical turning point. That remains a possibility worth watching, but Turkey has not announced that it intends to withdraw, and its new agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan does not itself require such a break.

In fact, Erdoğan may find that remaining inside NATO while developing alternative alliances gives him considerably more leverage than leaving the organization. Turkey benefits from NATO’s security guarantees while possessing the military strength and geographical importance to negotiate with both Western and non-Western powers. Washington cannot simply treat Turkey as another minor ally that will obediently follow American foreign policy. European governments depend upon Ankara for migration management, Black Sea security, and access to important trade and energy routes. At the same time, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan now see Turkey as an increasingly important military partner. Erdoğan is placing himself in a position where competing powers must negotiate with Ankara rather than ignore it.

The Red Sea is another critical part of this development. Houthi attacks have threatened one of the world’s most important commercial shipping routes, disrupting maritime trade and increasing transportation and insurance costs. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden, making it essential for vessels traveling through the Suez Canal. Turkey’s participation in a Saudi-led maritime security arrangement gives Ankara a greater role in protecting an international trade corridor that directly affects European and Asian commerce. Control over strategic waterways has always been central to the rise of major powers. Turkey already commands the passage between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and now it is extending its military influence toward another of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

The West has spent years treating Turkey as a difficult but ultimately dependable NATO partner. Ankara has its own objectives, its own regional rivals, and the military capability to pursue policies that do not necessarily align with Washington or Brussels. Whether Erdoğan eventually breaks with NATO or continues using membership to strengthen his negotiating position remains to be seen. Anyone studying the expanding War Cycle should be paying very close attention to Turkey.

I have heard some astonishingly stupid statements from politicians over the years, but Iran’s former labor minister Hojjat Abdolmaleki has managed to distinguish himself with an economic theory that belongs in an asylum rather than a university. Abdolmaleki, who served under former President Ebrahim Raisi and is supposedly a professor of economics, appeared on Iranian state television to explain that the country’s economy has no serious problems once you disregard inflation. He actually declared, “Set high prices aside and you have no other economic problems… We have no problems, praised be God.”

Iran’s year-on-year inflation has reached an astonishing 89.8%, while the annual inflation measure climbed from 69.9% in August to 73.6% in September. Food prices are rising even faster, with some products such as cooking oil increasing more than 250% compared with a year earlier. Even rents, which recorded the smallest increase among the major household categories, rose more than 30%. What exactly does Abdolmaleki expect the Iranian people to do? Stop eating? Stop paying rent? Pretend their currency has not been destroyed? Perhaps he should explain to a mother who cannot afford food for her children that the economy is perfectly healthy once she ignores the fact that everything she needs has become unaffordable.

The stupidity becomes even more offensive when we examine what has actually happened to Iran’s economy. I recently wrote about the collapse of Iranian petroleum exports, which fell from approximately 230,000 barrels per day at the beginning of September to virtually ZERO under the American naval blockade. Vortexa estimated that 83 million barrels of Iranian crude were sitting aboard tankers, including 43 million barrels trapped west of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has oil that it cannot freely sell, a government that depends upon petroleum revenue, and an economy desperately in need of foreign exchange. Yet this former minister believes inflation is the only problem worth discussing.

The rial has lost approximately 35% of its value against the dollar since July. That currency collapse makes imported medicine, machinery, food, and essential industrial supplies more expensive, further destroying the purchasing power of the population. The International Monetary Fund projects that Iran’s economy will contract 7.6% in 2026, while Iranian government figures showed GDP falling approximately 10% during the spring. Oil and gas production, manufacturing, trade, and services have all suffered. These are not imaginary problems that disappear because a politician decides to exclude them from his definition of economic distress. Iran is experiencing a contraction in productive activity while the cost of living is exploding, and the people are being crushed between the two.

Abdolmaleki previously claimed that the war and regional conditions accounted for less than 1% of rising prices. A country cannot lose access to its principal export revenues, experience severe currency depreciation, suffer disruptions to international trade, and somehow remain insulated from the consequences. Oil exports provide the foreign currency necessary to purchase imports and support domestic financial stability. When those revenues disappear, the government faces a growing shortage of hard currency while businesses struggle to obtain the supplies necessary to continue operating. The resulting pressure on the currency and prices is precisely what we are witnessing.

He has also dismissed the consequences of internet shutdowns, claiming that businesses could simply move to domestic platforms and that nobody had lost employment because of the disruptions. Anyone who has ever operated a business understands how absurd that statement is. A company cannot simply replace its customers, payment networks, suppliers, and established commercial relationships because some bureaucrat decides that an alternative platform exists. Commerce depends upon confidence and access to markets. Destroy those connections and businesses lose revenue, employees lose their livelihoods, and investment begins looking elsewhere.

Iranian citizens are now reporting delays of weeks and even months in receiving unemployment benefits. Some have described being unable to purchase food or service existing debts while waiting for payments from the government. Iran’s Social Security Organization has acknowledged enormous financing pressures, including a monthly pension shortfall of at least 170 trillion rials even if it collects all current contributions. Pensioners have protested over delayed payments, and workers in various industries have reported unpaid wages. These are people who have already lost their jobs or depend upon government benefits to survive. Their government cannot reliably meet its obligations, yet a former labor minister is telling them that everything is fine if they simply disregard prices.

I have explained repeatedly that inflation is one of the most destructive forces a government can unleash upon its own population because it destroys the purchasing power of savings and wages. People work their entire lives accumulating money only to discover that the government has destroyed its value. Inflation is particularly devastating to the poor and elderly because they have fewer assets capable of appreciating alongside rising prices. Those who own tangible assets may retain some protection, but the person dependent upon a fixed pension or modest salary watches their standard of living deteriorate with every increase. At inflation approaching 90%, prices would nearly double in a year if that pace persisted. No ordinary worker can plan for the future under such conditions.

This is the mentality that produces economic collapse. Politicians spend their careers manipulating statistics and making excuses rather than confronting the consequences of their own policies. When revenues disappear, they borrow or create more money. When the currency collapses, they blame speculators or foreign enemies. When inflation destroys purchasing power, they announce that everything would be wonderful if the public simply stopped complaining about prices. Abdolmaleki’s comments have been ridiculed across Iran’s political spectrum, including by conservatives who understand that such statements insult the intelligence of ordinary citizens.

Iran possesses enormous petroleum reserves, natural resources, and a population capable of building a productive economy. Yet the country has been driven into a financial crisis by decades of political mismanagement, sanctions, and now economic warfare that has devastated its export earnings. I have explained that the sovereign debt crisis throughout the Middle East becomes particularly severe when governments dependent upon petroleum revenue lose the ability to sell their resources. Their obligations do not disappear when the oil stops flowing. The government must still pay employees, support essential services, finance imports, and service its debts. Eventually the financial structure begins breaking down, and no amount of political propaganda can manufacture the capital required to sustain it.

The Iranian people deserve better than this insulting nonsense from men who have enjoyed positions of authority while ordinary families struggle to survive. An economics professor who believes the economy is healthy once inflation is removed from consideration has demonstrated that he understands absolutely NOTHING about economics. Inflation is the destruction of purchasing power, and purchasing power is fundamental to the standard of living of every citizen. When a government cannot preserve the value of its currency, provide economic stability, or meet its financial obligations, it has failed in its most basic responsibilities. Abdolmaleki may be able to disregard inflation from the comfort of a television studio, but the Iranian people must confront it every time they attempt to purchase food, pay rent, or provide for their families.

The American housing market is deteriorating, and the latest figures from the National Association of Home Builders should concern anyone who believes the economy is doing just fine. Builder confidence plunged to 29 in October, the lowest reading since June 2012, when the nation was still recovering from the 2008 real estate collapse. Economists expected a reading of 31. The index has now fallen to a level not seen in more than 14 years, while the average 30-year mortgage rate has climbed to 7.40%, its highest level in nearly three years. Americans simply cannot afford the homes being built, and the construction industry is beginning to reflect the financial reality households across the country face.

The Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low for far too long, particularly during the pandemic, when mortgage rates fell below 3%. That created an extraordinary distortion in real estate. Home prices soared as cheap credit allowed buyers to bid far beyond what they could otherwise afford. Now those same properties are being financed at mortgage rates above 7%, while prices remain elevated.

The NAHB reported that 43% of builders reduced prices in October, the highest share recorded during the 2020–2026 period. The average reduction was 6%, while 65% of builders offered sales incentives. That means nearly two-thirds are attempting to lure buyers with mortgage rate buydowns, closing cost assistance, or other concessions because demand is disappearing. Prospective buyer traffic collapsed to an index reading of just 18, the weakest since April 2012 outside the initial pandemic shutdown. Current sales conditions declined to 33, while expectations for the next six months fell to 32. Builders are sitting on unsold inventory and have little incentive to begin additional projects when the homes already completed cannot attract qualified buyers.

We are witnessing two entirely different real estate economies. Those who purchased or refinanced during the pandemic are sitting on mortgages at 2% or 3%, and many have absolutely no intention of selling because replacing that loan would substantially increase their monthly expenses. Meanwhile, younger families and first-time buyers are confronting inflated property values, expensive financing, higher insurance premiums, and property taxes that have climbed alongside valuations. Even those who can qualify for a mortgage are questioning whether purchasing makes financial sense. The market has become increasingly dependent upon existing homeowners who possess substantial equity or buyers wealthy enough to purchase without relying heavily on financing. The average working family is being squeezed out.

The problem extends well beyond mortgage rates. Builders are confronting higher construction loan costs, expensive materials, rising diesel prices, and labor shortages. The Middle East conflict has added further pressure to energy prices, and those costs work their way through the entire construction process. Diesel is needed to transport lumber, concrete, steel, equipment, and nearly everything else required to build a house. Tariffs have also raised costs for certain imported materials. More than one-third of builders reported immigration enforcement activity in their markets during the past month, contributing to delays and labor disruptions. Builders are being squeezed from both directions as expenses rise while buyers demand discounts. There is only so much a company can reduce its selling price before construction becomes unprofitable.

The politicians continue promising that the Federal Reserve will rescue the housing market by cutting interest rates. That demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how mortgages are priced. The Fed controls the overnight policy rate, not the yield on the 10-year Treasury or the mortgage-backed securities that determine what lenders charge borrowers. Long-term rates respond to inflation expectations, government borrowing, credit conditions, and international capital flows. Washington is running enormous deficits while spending more than $1 trillion annually on net interest payments. The Treasury must continually attract buyers for its debt, and investors are not obligated to accept lower yields simply because politicians want cheaper mortgages before an election. Even a substantial reduction in the federal funds rate would not guarantee a comparable decline in mortgage rates.

Americans are also dealing with the accumulated inflation of the past six years. Every monthly inflation report measures additional price changes on top of the enormous increases that have already occurred since 2020. A household paying substantially more for groceries, electricity, transportation, healthcare, and insurance has less disposable income available for housing. Wage increases have not magically restored the purchasing power lost during the inflationary surge. Consumers are becoming more cautious because their budgets are already stretched, and the prospect of taking on a 30-year obligation at today’s prices and interest rates is increasingly unattractive.

The housing market is one of the clearest indicators of how monetary policy and inflation have distorted the economy. Homebuilders cannot manufacture qualified buyers. They can offer incentives and cut prices, but they cannot force families to accept mortgage payments that consume an unreasonable share of their income. Nor can they continue constructing homes indefinitely when their own financing, labor, and material expenses keep rising. Eventually, projects are postponed, employment suffers, and the slowdown spreads into industries dependent upon residential construction, from appliances and furniture to transportation and building supplies.

The public has been conditioned to believe that the extraordinary mortgage rates of 2020 and 2021 were normal and that the market will somehow return to those conditions once the Fed begins cutting rates. Those rates were the product of an extraordinary monetary experiment, not a sustainable foundation for the housing market. The damage from that period remains embedded in property prices and household finances. Builder confidence at a 14-year low is telling us that the industry has reached the limits of what consumers can afford. Washington can continue promising affordable housing, but it cannot legislate away accumulated inflation, rising construction costs, or the price of capital. The longer politicians refuse to confront those realities, the longer the American dream of homeownership will remain beyond the reach of ordinary working families.

QUESTION: Is it true that Warren Buffett used your analysis from the 1980s, a pivotal decade in which he became a billionaire and a widely recognized figure, when you started the whole takeover boom? And do you agree with his calls for a crash?

SD

ANSWER: I have no idea. Yes, I was presenting those charts at various conferences, from Cycle Foundation to COMPUTRAC. Granted, that was the ultimate decade for value investing. I think he began looking for value in the ’70s. He did not get his idea from me originally. He nay have been influence by my forecasts during the ’80s. But that I cannot confirm or deny that claim.

The ’80s was a wild period. I ws named the highest paid analyst, called in during the Plaza Accord, and the Presidential Commission on the 1987 Crash. I am sure we were both aware of each other. That is all can say on this subject. I think his value investing began in the ’70s entirely on his own.

I believe Buffett is more of a domestic investor where I was always international. As Europe burns, capital has been moving here. Louis XVI did initially fail to grasp the seriousness of the uprising. He and I came head to head only on the silver trade he did with Phibro.

According to the well-known account, on the night of July 14, 1789 (or the morning of July 15), the Duke de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt brought the king news of the storming of the Bastille. Louis XVI reportedly asked, “Is this a revolt?” and Liancourt replied, “No, Sire, it is a revolution.” Cyclically, a revolt should continue into November sing this began in France during mid-September 2026, initially triggered by student protests over poor school conditions, which later escalated into nationwide violent unrest. Even the 10 yr showed an important turning point in September with a Directional Change. If this continues beyond November, then Europe is in serious trouble.

We will be looking at how capital moves during times of war, but also how the rule of law goes silent during war. Nations were confiscating assets of private citizens all based on the ethnicity or nationality. Most people heard of the Japanese prison camps of 120,000 people. But they confiscate all their property,m land businesses etc. Government “requisition” people to turn over the gold. This report will be part of the WEC. 99% of the people have no idea of the risks with war.

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 on me 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 presented 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.