This is highly unlikely. For now anyway. Denmark's US Treasury holdings are small, and have been 'sold off' gradually for the past decade.
Bessent is correct: it's fake news.
Geopolitical Analysis: A Bird's-Eye View of the Global Situation
- Thread starter Possibility of Being
- Start date
Bessent is correct: it's fake news.
Well Denmark isn't alone in Europe and if they find the balls ( European ) and working together they hold very strong card.
Chinese are dumping US bond and it look like many country as in Europe are doing it as well and investing in China.
Bond Collapse Forces U.S. REVERSAL As Investors CANCEL Treasuries For China RMB Debt
What was his opinion on the speech?
Carlos Alberto
Padawan Learner
Here's and AI-generated summary:
On the second key topics and insights of the summary it says:
fifty_five
Jedi Master
I think it's easy to miss the point. What we are seeing is the world trying to find a way out of the empire, not without clumsy and futile attempts by vassals, who are nothing more than colonists who indignantly accuse the US of colonialism. Even the emerging non-colonial powers of multipolarism, such as Russia and China, have their difficulties given the inextricable web of interdependence that actually exists. I think it is very interesting, regardless of political beliefs, which are not only current but also, at the same time, completely OBSOLETE, and not just now, But still determine the points of assemblage of reality. Infinite repetition of the pattern. How interesting.
Equinox
The Force is Strong With This One
Indeed. Charles III is the King of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, after all. And I'm pretty sure Mark Carney is a full on royalist.
To understand America's relationship with Canada is to also understand America's relationship with Britain and Britain's relationship with Canada. I think this 3-way relationship thing really snags on Trump.
mocachapeau
Dagobah Resident
Upon further reflexion, re-reading the Carney speech, I have concluded that it is nothing more than a large, steaming pile of horse hockey. It is dishonest, hypocritical and driven by virtue signalling that is designed to elicit the kind of approval it has received. It has actually been compared to MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, believe it or not. Probably by a paid troll, or a bot.
First, he explains how countries like Canada benefitted from the "old order", which he compares to communism, with a straight face.
"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection."
"We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality."
"Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true."
Many have interpreted this as an admission that countries were turning a blind eye to the abuses of power perpetrated around the world by the US because they were benefitting from that relationship. However, he says the following in contradiction to such an admission:
"Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints." - A nice story? But you said it was about ignoring the rhetoric and living within a lie.
"Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture."
"Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid."
"And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships."
"Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading."
He's making it sound like the great powers (the US in particular) not being subject to any constraints is something new!! Really? So leaders of western countries have been totally unaware that the US has been committing crimes around the world for at least the past 80 years, and that they've never been punished? So... we didn't know what was going on until now? (That sounds familiar... covid, anyone?)
People on this forum know full-well what's really been going on, so I'm not going to waste your time getting into that. So let's look at his proposed solutions.
"In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact."
"As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum."
"Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu."
All he seems to be proposing is the same globalism only without including the US and Russia. But apparently China's okay as a partner, human rights abuses and all. And the fact that China is pretty tight with Russia doesn't seem to be a problem, either.
He mentions that doing all this will come at a price - "... such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared." But wait. What did he say near the beginning of his speech?
"But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states."
Apparently his plan has the capacity to build autonomy and sovereignty, but comes with a LOSS of autonomy and sovereignty. That doesn't sound too coherent. And that loss of autonomy and sovereignty? No problem, because we'll all suffer that loss together! Kumbaya!
Which brings me to the virtue signalling.
"Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” – or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic."
"Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights.
Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values."
"Canada is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values."
"We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength." - Soundbite.
"To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests." - Variable geometry... okay.
In my opinion, this simply translates to, "WE have decent values, the US does not. WE are virtuous, the US is not." It's the same old woke virtue signalling that will appeal to those among the masses who have allowed that mindset to creep into their thinking. As we all know, the woke mindset is all about stripping away everyone's rights in order to help the marginalized groups. At the same time, his words present nothing concrete - nothing specific, nothing defined.
I get the impression that the populations of the middle power countries that sign on to his vague plan may find themselves stripped of all their rights in order to help that coalition of countries, as a whole. This is wokeism, this is globalism, this is communism.
I think special attention should be given to the phrase, "not every partner shares our values". This seems to be the narrative that will permit partnerships with China and other abusive regimes, which really means staying with the way of the "old order" of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses simply because we are benefitting from the relationship. Although I think it will eventually be more about joining in on the abuse.
All in all, it sounds to me like Carney has no problem with the big boys bullying the little countries as long as Canada benefits, and Canada doesn't get bullied. But now it's getting bullied, and that's unacceptable. Pure hypocrisy.
First, he explains how countries like Canada benefitted from the "old order", which he compares to communism, with a straight face.
"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection."
"We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality."
"Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true."
Many have interpreted this as an admission that countries were turning a blind eye to the abuses of power perpetrated around the world by the US because they were benefitting from that relationship. However, he says the following in contradiction to such an admission:
"Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints." - A nice story? But you said it was about ignoring the rhetoric and living within a lie.
"Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture."
"Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid."
"And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships."
"Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading."
He's making it sound like the great powers (the US in particular) not being subject to any constraints is something new!! Really? So leaders of western countries have been totally unaware that the US has been committing crimes around the world for at least the past 80 years, and that they've never been punished? So... we didn't know what was going on until now? (That sounds familiar... covid, anyone?)
People on this forum know full-well what's really been going on, so I'm not going to waste your time getting into that. So let's look at his proposed solutions.
"In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact."
"As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum."
"Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu."
All he seems to be proposing is the same globalism only without including the US and Russia. But apparently China's okay as a partner, human rights abuses and all. And the fact that China is pretty tight with Russia doesn't seem to be a problem, either.
He mentions that doing all this will come at a price - "... such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared." But wait. What did he say near the beginning of his speech?
"But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states."
Apparently his plan has the capacity to build autonomy and sovereignty, but comes with a LOSS of autonomy and sovereignty. That doesn't sound too coherent. And that loss of autonomy and sovereignty? No problem, because we'll all suffer that loss together! Kumbaya!
Which brings me to the virtue signalling.
"Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” – or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic."
"Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights.
Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values."
"Canada is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values."
"We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength." - Soundbite.
"To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests." - Variable geometry... okay.
In my opinion, this simply translates to, "WE have decent values, the US does not. WE are virtuous, the US is not." It's the same old woke virtue signalling that will appeal to those among the masses who have allowed that mindset to creep into their thinking. As we all know, the woke mindset is all about stripping away everyone's rights in order to help the marginalized groups. At the same time, his words present nothing concrete - nothing specific, nothing defined.
I get the impression that the populations of the middle power countries that sign on to his vague plan may find themselves stripped of all their rights in order to help that coalition of countries, as a whole. This is wokeism, this is globalism, this is communism.
I think special attention should be given to the phrase, "not every partner shares our values". This seems to be the narrative that will permit partnerships with China and other abusive regimes, which really means staying with the way of the "old order" of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses simply because we are benefitting from the relationship. Although I think it will eventually be more about joining in on the abuse.
All in all, it sounds to me like Carney has no problem with the big boys bullying the little countries as long as Canada benefits, and Canada doesn't get bullied. But now it's getting bullied, and that's unacceptable. Pure hypocrisy.
Spending on NATO seems not to be a Canadian value. Has Mark Carney ever admitted that Canada hasn't honored the NATO 2% defense spending guideline for 30+ years? With that, it seems surprising that Canada was accepted as the first non-European nation to join the EU's Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, unless it's considered that an awful lot of countries just want less to do with the USA.
Jtucker
Jedi Master
I think your summary is very accurate. But, I think Carney and his Swiss banker friends plans for Canada are much darker under the surface of his bold words. The first thing that I think is important, is that since WW II Canada has been an integral partner in U.S. geopolitical security. Cheap resources were easily transported to the U.S. and a tacit agreement for Canada to not try and compete on a manufacturing nor innovation level with the U.S. after NAFTA came in.
Also with the only legitimate military threat to the U.S. being ICBM's from the USSR over the Arctic, Canada's role in Norad and the DEW line gave the U.S. free reign to accomplish a Distant Early Warning system on Canadian soil.
With Oreshnik and its soon to be advanced descendants - the DEW is obsolete and irrelevant (the Greenland issue probably being related to this). Canada has unfairly abused the cross-border trade agreements via Dairy Supply Management, aluminum and steel manufacturing, as well as soft wood lumber through (not so hidden) subsidies. Also, Canadian banks have a large presence in the U.S. and no U.S Banks are allowed in Canada.
This was tolerated by the U.S., because the Canadian government, up until ten years ago, had a relatively stable, coherent structure that was aligned with the U.S. (no matter how ideologically more left we may have appeared in the cities).
Once the drug cartels got in through the student visa program and the labs were built, that "secure" partner status changed. With major cities having programs handing out hard drugs to almost anyone via NGO's, our inner cities are getting hellish. The border is easily traversed to export those drugs to the U.S.
Now we're seen as a threat with drugs and gangs and strategically unnecessary to the U.S. I think Trump wanted a new CUSMA/NAFTA where Canada fixed the drugs, immigration and ended the subsidies in key industries. My guess that if Canada just fixed the drugs and removed some of the subsidies this would have been enough. Carney's speech ends that chance, by the looks of it.
I've worked in manufacturing and logistics for three decades in Canada. Not a single person I deal with on a daily basis, thinks anything in Carney's plan is remotely possible. Our supply chain and infrastructure is old, inefficient and rigid. It's defined by road and rail east to west in Canada and regional co-operation between the major Canadian cities and their closest U.S. trade partners. That's the majority of our economic activity.
That infrastructure which has developed since the mid-19th century, is not going to change before CUSMA expires, and I personally don't think it's possible - period.
Even though Carney and the "Laurentian Elite" that run Canada at the policy level, are more ideologically close to Europe, they have to know that this plan is intentional economic implosion with the hope that they can blame it all on Trump when the decline accelerates through the actual sectors of the economy.
I don't think Carney actually believes Canada is being rebuilt into a New World Order. He knows it's impossible. So the question, is then, what's the real plan? Canada, doesn't have the technology, climate, population density, geography or cultural cohesion to even turn Toronto or Vancouver into a 4th tier Chinese city.
Maybe someone up in that echelon got the "Ice Age Cometh" memo and decided to just let Canada freeze over and strip out the copper wire from abandoned buildings, so to say. Who knows? All the bold words and "rah rah' anti-American speeches, don't change the fact that there is not one positive leading economic indicator in any major sector of the economy that I can find. Exports to China an Europe won't change that - regardless of tariff changes from those trading partners (which in Europe's case are extensive). There's no logistic infrastructure to implement the "New World Order" and far too much geographical distance to make up for.
I will give him credit for the strategic move of getting ahead of train wreck with a fake "plan" to get us out of a severe economic downturn that will only get worse.
Interesting, that Jeffrey Sachs reminds in his interview above, how Carney was somewhat a shining light as a student back when in Jeffrey's orbit. I'm pretty sure, when at Goldman Sachs, Carney had had a hand in Russia's financial downfall (although he was exiting), and I'm not saying he did it in a big way or on his own, not saying he is like Bill Browder (by the way, it is now Sir Bill
To pause at Goldman Sachs and Carney, read here to see some calculated or just scandals exited by Carney just in time:
It was Carney’s time as co-head of sovereign risk that was perhaps the most exciting time in his career at Goldman. It’s not clear when exactly he resigned and moved to New York, but his work on the Russian financial crisis in August 1998 has been widely reported, including by Encyclopedia Britannica editor, Peter Kellner.
If Carney was Goldman’s co-head of sovereign risk as late as August, he was definitely very much aware of the collapse of infamous hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (LTCM). The fund's implosion was itself tied to the Russian financial crisis as well as the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which Carney was definitely co-head of sovereign risk for.
Why is that so important? Because Goldman Sachs didn't do badly from the LTCM situation.
Sebastian Mallaby is cited from his book “More Money Than God”:
Carney had worked on Enron on the threshold before it collapsed, too, and had exited just in nick of time.
To digress, there is a NYT article synopsis (half decent of the Times because it was written in 1998) that looks at what was going down with Goldman in Russia, and how they were appointed, got out, got back in, loaned and sold, that some say helped the rapid collapse.
Now when Jeffery Sachs spoke above, he critiqued the EU well, adding nuances and such, especially in respect to Germany and Italy. I don't think he really ever discussed the UK - was waiting for it, yet by and large it was omitted, and that gets back to Carney - and the above "Canada is not independent, it's a British protectorate." That is the thing, Carney takes his orders from the Privy Council - to be sure he has leeway, yet on big issues he will be focused and steered. The question then is, who does the Privy Council truly represent?
I'm not so sure anymore that Charles is the King of Canada, that is if the BNA ACT is in fact invalid. Its murky. Me thinks the royalists are loyalists to the City of London, which Mark would fit to a T.
For now, Carney is smelling like roses on the big Canadian SOY stage in a deal with Xi (recall that China had in March 2025 imposed Canada with 100% export tariffs on SOY, because Canada had laid down 100% import tariffs on EV's from China - so SOY is a big deal, and very big for the American farmers (and, Monsanto - aka Bayer):
From 2018:
So, when Carney was complaining about tariffs with Trump for the news - albeit complaints going both ways, in the background was China, and of course Russia. One can look it up, yet it has been said by a few, that Carney and Trump appear to be playing a Good Cop and Bad Cop game on China:
Anyway, with Carney, not to be forgot is that a leopard does not change his spots. Carney does not represent citizens as anyone living in Canada had experienced, despite the platitudes when he throws around a few crumbs.
For Bay Street (and that was in 2019):
Two-Thirds of All Assets in Canada’s Economy Are Now Owned By Under 1% of All Companies
Multinational corporations currently own 67% of all assets in Canada's economy
Two-Thirds of All Assets in Canada’s Economy Are Now Owned By Under 1% of All Companies
Multinational corporations currently own 67% of all assets in Canada's economypressprogress.ca
by Mitchell Thompson
April 1, 2019
Less than 1% of companies operating in Canada control over two-thirds of its assets, new figures from Statistics Canada show.
Many of those 'assets' are under American corporate control, too, and have been for sometime. That is the fragile Canadian economic reality, should foreign corporations ever decide to pull up stakes (and they have before and are). It is also a reality that could keep the game turning over for some time to come - which may mean that tariff words of Carney and Trump are just words and numbers (with dire consequences for folks producing), as the corporations find their chairs before the music stops.
There is a reason that Mark ran the Bank or Canada back then, with quick speed dial to Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. There are reasons he headed up the Bank of England, and reasons he became the UN's special envoy on climate change off the side of his desk. Big reasons he ran Brookfield Asset Management's hedge funds, along with GFANZ - reasons he captured green initiatives along with being one of the top dogs of the WEF, alongside Larry Fink.
Mark is assuredly smart...
To pause on what Carroll Quigley cites of Cecil Rhodes's circles within circles, with International Banking Rhodes big supporters, Mark is this circle. Although he is the PM and he can give marching orders, he also must take orders.
(credit to James Corbett's expose on Rhodes -2008 Meet Carroll Quigley)
Also not to be forgot, is that Carney was given the Chair of the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) in 2017, and maybe he is fully out now that he is PM, although with him it is hard to say. However, in 2019, Carney, the soon to be outgoing Gov. of the Bank of England said - using the pretext of C02 crises before the covidbs crises (never let a good crises go to waste) that:
The C's once said:
The world is looking at a lot of leaders who may appear to be in the darkest circles. Of the resent Canadian election cycle that heralded Mark to new political heights, there also appears to have been manufactured reasons:
Something fishy went down, and as Candace says, I don't like it.
Will have to wait and see what Mark's true circle is, and just how benevolent he might be within it.
On Trump, he is a businessman first and foremost, and every businessman needs supportive bankers.
I’ve now now listened to the speech of the german “chancellor“ Friedrich Merz at Davos and unsurprisingly it confirms my suspicions mentioned above in reaction to the “groundbreaking“ speech of the Canadian guy. His speech quite clearly IMO comes from the same script writers and it becomes clearer that the PTB behind weasels like Merz are setting up a dishonest ruse, “change“ and manipulative tactic to continue what they always tried to achieve but through different means now. A primary key remains to isolate Russia via lies and economic infiltration of its closest allies. Another goal that goes along with that is to reassert their power in the “eastern“ part of the world via a pretense of “we are onboard with multipolarity“ and trying to infiltrate pretty much all countries except Russia. And through that not only get them under the hood again but trying to achieve that with Russia as well through isolation.
So after all, as suspected, what the Canada guy said mirrors pretty much exactly what all the other usual suspects are saying now and it is a ruse IMO.
It also becomes clearer that different parties of that globalist uniparty are trying at the same time to manipulate Trump specifically, quite obviously. For example many of the usual suspects such as Merz, the Apple chief, Netanyahu and Zuckerberg are playing their roles to suck up to Trump while at the same time they are in reality serving their real masters in the background.
The PTB figured out a while ago that it is far easier to manipulate Trump via compliments and suck up talk rather than fighting him head on as they did before. All you really need to do for that is to insert in every second sentence “thank you mister Trump for the great things you are and have been doing“ and “you are the greatest guy ever“. That is all it takes for Trump to think of you as a “really good and nice guy“ which then gives those people almost a free pass in what they are doing without Trump ever criticizing them again for anything they do as long as they keep saying such things and not openly work against or criticize some of his “great ideas/actions“.
At the same time there are other actors that work for the same masters who on purpose criticize Trump and what he is saying/doing in order to aggravate and manipulate him, such as the Canadian guy. Trump of course doesn’t get that he is being played and gaslight in such ways a lot.
So after all, as suspected, what the Canada guy said mirrors pretty much exactly what all the other usual suspects are saying now and it is a ruse IMO.
It also becomes clearer that different parties of that globalist uniparty are trying at the same time to manipulate Trump specifically, quite obviously. For example many of the usual suspects such as Merz, the Apple chief, Netanyahu and Zuckerberg are playing their roles to suck up to Trump while at the same time they are in reality serving their real masters in the background.
The PTB figured out a while ago that it is far easier to manipulate Trump via compliments and suck up talk rather than fighting him head on as they did before. All you really need to do for that is to insert in every second sentence “thank you mister Trump for the great things you are and have been doing“ and “you are the greatest guy ever“. That is all it takes for Trump to think of you as a “really good and nice guy“ which then gives those people almost a free pass in what they are doing without Trump ever criticizing them again for anything they do as long as they keep saying such things and not openly work against or criticize some of his “great ideas/actions“.
At the same time there are other actors that work for the same masters who on purpose criticize Trump and what he is saying/doing in order to aggravate and manipulate him, such as the Canadian guy. Trump of course doesn’t get that he is being played and gaslight in such ways a lot.
Last edited:
I really do think in regards to Trump himself and what he is doing something like the following is very high up in his priorities:
He wants to do things that will enable his name to be remembered and written in golden colors in the future when he is gone as “one of the greatest presidents ever“ or perhaps “the greatest president ever“. In his mind, in order to achieve that, “he“ tries to do as many things as possible that look as big as possible. Getting Greenland is obviously such a thing as well as possibly getting Canada and such. And his time for achieving that is running out fast. A pretty self-absorbed objective indeed. I think it is likely though.
He wants to do things that will enable his name to be remembered and written in golden colors in the future when he is gone as “one of the greatest presidents ever“ or perhaps “the greatest president ever“. In his mind, in order to achieve that, “he“ tries to do as many things as possible that look as big as possible. Getting Greenland is obviously such a thing as well as possibly getting Canada and such. And his time for achieving that is running out fast. A pretty self-absorbed objective indeed. I think it is likely though.
Having said the above, IMO there is still at least one thing they are really annoyed about Trump though. He has a core principle that doesn’t seem to change and is unlikely to change until he is gone: He doesn’t want war and wants to be remembered as a “peace president“. Yes that becomes more flimsy by the day but I highly doubt that they can get real and big new war agendas going with Trump and especially ones that would involve “Americans lot’s of boots on the ground“ kinda things. Even big carpet bombings of other countries with no boots on the ground is unlikely to happen with Trump IMO.
But who knows how far his own self-absorbed ambitions coupled with staggering proclivities to be manipulated by Psychopaths will go when his time is running out.
By now I’m suspecting that the PTB probably count on J.D Vance to succeed Trump and through him they hope to being better able to get back on the open/big war path. Dunno if they are able to wait that long though.
But who knows how far his own self-absorbed ambitions coupled with staggering proclivities to be manipulated by Psychopaths will go when his time is running out.
By now I’m suspecting that the PTB probably count on J.D Vance to succeed Trump and through him they hope to being better able to get back on the open/big war path. Dunno if they are able to wait that long though.
Trending content
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
-
