ericbj

Unfortunately, not only NATO leaders but also most EU leaders appear to be brain dead when it comes to dealing with the US/NATO-Russian confrontation. You have only to look at the results of their policies so far. And yes, NATO countries are vulnerable to confiscation of their extensive assets in Russia. Yet seem oblivious to this fact as they continue to pursue the policies required by Biden. Or more precisely by those who are using him. Just look at the GDP of west European countries. No wonder there is political revolt brewing. And for Russian GDP annual growth rate, see here: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual This may also be of interest: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399

When Cameron denounces Starmer as "a threat to National Security" what he means is that he could represent a threat to the mountains of assets acquired by the nation's billionaire 'elites', and the golden backhanders of their facilitators. The general public is milked by a complaisant parliamentary apparatus and civil service, ever ready to engineer wars and crises to justify heavier taxes (and austerity and other restrictions) on the general population, to fuel the speculations of largely tax-exempt magnates. As regards the "defence" of the UK in far-flung countries, Starmer is as hawkish as any. He can be counted upon to continue obeying the dictates of the US "Deep State", as reflected in the policies of the US Government. And he will have to follow the guidance of The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street if he wishes to retain his "position of power". So, billionaires, rest easy on your laurels.

The article is interesting, and much of it is doubtlessly valid. But it is at the same time a propaganda piece, and, as any good propagandist knows, verifiable information must be included with falsehood. War is war. The US and NATO sought, for a number of years, to provoke Russia into a conflict with the Ukraine. Believing, nonetheless, that the Ukraine would be crushed in short order. The Ukraine was to be sacrificed for NATO's objective of justifying massive economic sanctions based upon 'Russian aggression'. The US/NATO goal was Russia's economic and political collapse. But their projections seem to be proving faulty as regards this end-result. Who is to blame for the prolonged bloodshed and destruction? And the refusal to negotiate a settlement? I guess most people have heard of the Gladio operations. They and similar atrocities are history. But those responsible in US Naval Intelligence and the CIA have never been held to account. So what are these organisations up to today? People who believe Russia blew up the Nord Stream Pipelines, as implied in the article, have never examined the available evidence. Or prefer to blinker their thinking.

My recollection is that Thaksin called off the killing spree after being rebuked by higher authority. That much was made publicly known by either 'The Nation' or 'The Bangkok Post'.

Thaksin himself, when in power, did not tout democracy. To quote him (from memory): "Democracy is like a Rolls-Royce. The Thai people do not need a Rolls-Royce. They need a utility vehicle." So, in this respect, he is consistent.

This man should have been tried long ago for ordering the extra-judicial killing (murder) of thousands of alleged "drug dealers".

https://franklegaltax.com/legal-regulations-and-tax-implications-of-cryptocurrencies/ Seems from this page that you would likely be liable for personal income tax on the capital gain. A potential problem for you if you cannot prove the gain and the transaction goes through your Thai bank account. I suggest enquiring with the web-site authors, Frank Legal & Tax. And let us know what they say

https://www.neuralword.com/en/article/extracting-slime-from-snails-a-step-by-step-guide

NATO sought, and finally achieved, a military intervention by Russia. Finally? Yes, Putin was under growing pressure from the electorate to take action to halt the ongoing eight-year massacre of the majority Russian-speaking civilian population of the Eastern Ukraine. Beginning with the massacres at Odessa (well-documented, albeit not by western MSM) and Mariupol (not well-documented). NATO military analysts expected the war to be won by Russia, within a matter of weeks. This proved not to be the case. Because of the courageous and extremely stubborn Ukrainian resistance; and its possession of advanced man-portable A.T. and A.A. weaponry. And thanks to Russian miscalculations, based in part upon faulty intelligence. So why did NATO seek this proxy war with Russia? This was to be another Malaysian-Airliner-type incident, of the kind that persuaded a hitherto reluctant EU to impose economic sanctions on Russia. Sanctions, it was calculated, would eventually cause the collapse of Russia; its return to a Yeltsin-style administration favourable to western economic exploitation; and a break-up of the Russian Federation into multiple, manageable fragments. Unfortunately for the U.S. and its NATO satellites, the warmongering policy-makers got their sums wrong. Other aspects of NATO's economic warfare (exclusion from SWIFT, seizure of dollar reserves, etc.) have been a wake-up call, to countries otherwise unconcerned with the war, of what could potentially befall them. Unless they took pre-emptive measures. If NATO wanted peace in the Ukraine, why did they send Boris Johnson to Kiev to torpedo the Ukraine-Russia peace talks of March 2022?

Hedge your reserves with a decent proportion in gold bullion and gold royalty and streaming companies. But beware of cashing out at the moment of a financial crash because, historically, gold also - temporarily - crashes then, as holders cash out to meet debts.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

While not sharing all of Farage's opinions, nor the manner in which he sometimes expresses himself, if he manages to electrify a largely moribund House of Commons, by bringing critical issues into public debate, that would be a worthwhile outcome of him being elected. The possibility of him dividing electors for this party or that raises the question of whether a first-past-the-post voting system provides a government that is most representative of public opinion.

Clearly there are irreconcilable differences of opinion concerning Dr Fauci. However there are TWO aspects to his potential culpability. This article touches upon one of them, not much considered as yet on this forum: https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-says-fauci-caught-lies-congress-coronavirus-research-dead-rights

Apologies to those of limited attention span.

Thanks. Done ! I commonly copy/paste from my text editor, NoteTab Pro. But on this occasion from the word-processor of Libre Office. The latter reproduces the same large typeface I use to be able to see what I am typing more clearly. NoteTab always copies a standard size irrespective of the font size on screen.

A perspective on the issue and some comments pertaining thereto: 1. The woman's decision to emigrate to Thailand twenty years ago seems based upon re-joining family members. A quite natural motive. Her son was then aged 45. He seems to be contributing at least as much to her upkeep as the UK Pensions Service. Which, with his increasing age, a family to support, and economic downturns, is likely becoming increasingly burdensome. 2. What evidence exists, as alleged in a comment, of the son operating an illegal business? I.e. that it is not at least 51% Thai-owned. If unfounded, this statement could constitute a libel; and perjury if claimed in a criminal hearing. 3. The suggestion she may not have paid NI contributions is unsubstantiated; and besides the point if she is entitled on the basis of payments made by another. 4. It is true that many Thai workers and their families can subsist on less than this woman. But they are part of a network of relationships. Which includes expanding Thai Government social services, including healthcare. For example, go to a Thai public hospital for an eye operation. An expatriate will not have it for the price a Thai person pays. 5. Global economic circumstances have changed radically and unpredictably over the past 2 to 3 decades. And are changing ever more rapidly now. Who can foresee today what the world will be like in 2044? 6. The Thai economy and Thai regulations, both in substance and application, have dramatically altered over recent decades. 7. Not every retiree fits neatly into one of two categories: Those who plan the move in every last financial detail, down to their final demise; and Those who throw caution to the wind and come out on a whim, full of blue-eyed optimism. My personal experience - not typical - but there are doubtlessly many untypical cases: Came six months, unpaid, in each of a dozen years helping refugees (mostly genuine) improve their English with a view to resettlement in "western" countries. Discontinued this, but continued coming as result of relationships developed here. Because of changes to tourist visa (more limited duration), switched to O-A retirement visa. Changes to O-A visa (health insurance with one of 8 listed companies) forced change to O visa for retirement). Returned here late 2019. Due back in Europe mid-May. But the plandemic strikes. Return flight cancelled. Book seat on another flight. Flight cancelled. Book again. Third time lucky? No! Flight cancelled. From the next day, 1st July 2020, all international passenger-flights banned, and borders closed. When finally the sanctions are lifted (thanks to the damage caused to the world's second largest tourist economy) the deterioration of my health renders the return journey unthinkable, not least because of the physical and administrative challenges to be confronted on arrival. My impression of immigration policy as currently being drafted by the Thai Cabinet is that it favours short-term tourism where visitors come for several weeks, and spend much of their annual savings in the process. They seem to be less interested in retirees, unless these happen to be extremely well-heeled. The politicians may be missing the point that short-term tourism is volatile. When times are good, it booms. When a depression sets in, hardly anyone comes. You only have to look back to 2008 and its aftermath to see this. Retirees, on the other hand, make a less obvious but substantial commitment to the overall economy rather than to the tourist economy. They are here, as a rule, for the long term. It is not easy to up stumps and depart at short notice. Except upon death. And then some at least of their assets may remain in Thailand. There is a case for both types of visitor.

See here for Miron Glass containers : https://www.mironglass.com/glass

Adults should have the option of taking risks that could harm themselves. But not the right of taking risks that could harm others. In the event that there is evidence that they are doing the latter - e.g. by driving erratically under the influence - they might be legally forbidden to take the particular drug, whatever it might be. As well as any other penalty as may be appropriate. The former would of course be unenforceable. But then, in the case of recidivism, they could be very heavily penalised.

Absolutely. Just one example: Hydroxychloroquin, purchased by tourists leaving for malaria-infested parts, was available as an OTC (Over-The-Counter) drug. Until Professor Raoult showed that it could be re-purposed for use against a recently widespread infection that caused much hyped-up alarm. (So long as the infection was not at an advanced stage). Professor Raoult was lampooned by officialdom and the MSM. And the French government promptly banned not only OTC sales but GPs were forbidden to prescribe it. Its use is now only permitted in hospitals. Tourists with malaria be damned. But governments - not only in 'the West' - are also increasingly intent upon controlling our private lives [back-up your data to "The Cloud" etc.], our opinions, and our money [through CBDCs]

Ah ! I think I get you ! So it's the people who tell the doctors in Germany what to do that have decided to reduce the use of antibiotics ?

Healthy people do not merely have "good" bacteria in their bodies. They also have "bad" bacteria; as well as others whose precise nature is not yet known. The so-called bad bacteria are kept in check by the other species, but if these latter are greatly diminished the population of bad bacteria can expand. Causing a diseased state. [e.g. you can have the pneumococcus inhabiting your lungs without the least sign of pneumonia] It is recommended to check out the importance to health of the gut microbiome. Healthy people have more varieties of bacteria in their gut than the chronically ill. [Preservatives in industrialised foods can also adversely impact the gut microbiome. And note that the now ubiquitous glyphosate was originally patented as an antibiotic. Well named: anti bios] Moreover the human body is believed, on recent research, to contain approximately the same number of bacteria as human cells. They are an integral part of our bodies. Many of the them are known to perform useful functions, whilst for others their utility is still unknown. Antibiotics can save lives, but can also cause untold suffering. A fact that many doctors in Thailand do not seem to have caught up with, since they can be all too ready to prescribe an antibiotic. A German neighbour tells me that in his country doctors have become hesitant to prescribe antibiotics where they can be avoided.

Greed wins over ignorance. We are all ignorant to a degree. But to the degree that we are well informed we can tell the greedy to get lost. The general public is becoming better informed; to date more so in "the West". This is causing concern amongst greedy financial interests. [Note, for example, the interlocking interests of the pharmaceutical industry and main-stream media - on- and off-line; include search-engines there]. They are taking steps to choke off information that can threaten their bottom line. But ways around the largely invisible censorship are being developed. If you care to follow 'alternative' sources. I believe the possibility exists for us, members of the general public, to gain access to the broad uplands of knowledge that concern our and our relations well-being.

We are concerned here with a crisis for the pharmaceutical industry and its dependents (including most hospitals and medical practitioners). There are plenty of alternatives to antibiotics, some in use for thousands of years. But as they cannot be patented and therefore are relatively cheap they represent a financial threat to the medical-industrial complex. Do a diligent web-search and you will find them. For example: essential oils, oxidation therapies (such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hyperbaric oxygen), certain metals (such as colloidal silver; but NO, not mercury or arsenic as used in the past). When, in October 2022, I suffered a very severe respiratory and throat infection, possibly from a Cvd variant, it confined me to bed for three days. I was up on the fourth day, and cycling into town, albeit very weak, for a meal in my favorite Burmese tea-room, on the fifth day. I had regularly taken doses of an extremely dilute aqueous solution of chlorine dioxide. Disgusting in taste. But highly effective. The emphasis of medicine should be on restoring functionality, including that of the immune system. Rather than on treating symptoms which are often the body's attempt to deal with a problem. In my days (long ago) in the New Guinea jungle I had with me a slender volume on Tropical Medicine. It mentioned that, pre-War, the common outcome for dysentery was death. The reason given: to stop the diarrhoea (and thus block evacuation of toxins) doctors administered opium. There is a need for a much deeper understanding, than is common at the present time, of how the body functions. Such knowledge is often already available amongst the scientits (the medical researchers). It tends to be lacking amongst the technicians (the medical workers of different kinds).

There is considerable confusion here over the meaning of "antisemitism". Antisemitism implies a hatred of semites. I.e. Jews and Arabs. A large if indeterminate number of Jews are not anti-Arab nor are most Arabs anti-Jewish. They are however anti-Zionist. As are many Jews. Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a nationalism, initially opposed to Judaism, i.e. anti-Jewish. It gained a substantial following as result of extreme persecution of the Jews, firstly in Eastern Europe and subsequently in Nazi-occupied Europe. The Netanyahu government came to power through the support of approximately 20% of the Israeli electorate. The events of 7th October as reported in the Mainstream Western Media have subsequently been shown to be in large measure black propaganda emanating from Israeli and pro-Israeli sources. A bit of due diligence and background research is called for here. In the US it is clear from a brief search that many Jewish students support Palestinian aspirations for justice through the demonstrations. In the UK the situation is less clear, but there are certainly some Jewish students (ignored by the MSM because incompatible with their narrative) who support the Palestinian cause.

It may be of interest to know that I had an O-A visa for several years, based, inter alia, upon 1,250K baht in a deposit account. But then some years ago when going to renew it, I was asked "Do you have health insurance?" "Yes," I replied. "Is it with one of the eight approved companies?" No, it was not. I had not heard of the new requirement introduced, I think the previous April. "Give me the details of the companies, and I shall take out the necessary insurance," I said. "There is no time for that," I was told. "They will not issue a policy within the fortnight when your visa expires." "What can I do then?" I asked. "We can issue you with an O visa which does not require medical insurance," came the reply. So, since that time I have had an O visa. Out of interest, I checked out the eight approved companies. I discovered that none of them would insure a person of more than 75 years of age. Except two of them, which would do so, for a certain number of years, if the person was already insured with them before the cut-off age. The premium? 130K baht per annum, for the minimum cover of 40K outpatient and 400K baht inpatient expenses. I was at that time some months short of my 76th birthday (and now almost 80). Coincidentally, I was then, and still am, holding slightly in excess of 450K baht on deposit (in addition to the required 800K baht) to cover emergencies. I would like to hold more of my reserves over here, but uncertainty of future Thai regulations regarding visa requirements, makes me feel it would be unwise to do so. I have taken out here in Thailand an accident-only, inpatient-only insurance to cover 20K USD of costs. The most I feel I can afford on my UK state pension, supplemented by drawings on my reserves. Of course not enough to cover a serious accident, such as being knocked off my bicycle by a lunatic driver. But then at my age I would probably not survive such an accident anyway. On a separate note: Regarding the costs of living in Thailand, it is necessary to specify whether one lives in a tourist-hotspot or in an area ignored by the foreign crowds. The differences can be considerable. Many might consider me a slum-dweller. But I have slummed it in many places, beginning with five years as a native affairs officer in the New Guinea bush in the 1960s, and in the earlier years of this millennium living with expatriate Burmese on the Thai side of the border.