Economic News

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BBC-Fakes-News.mp4   The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say. What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!! There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire. The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press. While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.  The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation. My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!! Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners. Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.” Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives. Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate. Defamation Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional. It is

The Roots of Tulip Mania So, what is the story with the tulip mania? Well, as some may be aware, the tulip is a national symbol of the Netherlands. The country is affectionately known by some as “the flower shop of the world.” If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands, you’ve probably seen some or visited some of the beautifully cultivated fields of colorful tulips lining the landscape of the Dutch countryside. There are countless tulip museums and tulip festivals are still celebrated annually throughout the country. The Dutch people even took their love of tulips abroad when emigrating from their homeland, starting up tulip festivals in places like New York (which Holland.com points out was originally known as New Amsterdam) and in the town aptly named Holland located in the U.S. state of Michigan. Despite this near obsession with tulips, the flower is not native to the Netherlands. They are actually native to the Pamir and Tan Shan mountain ranges located in Central Asia primarily in modern-day Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. They were brought to the Netherlands in the late-16th century from the Ottoman Empire where the flower had been cultivated for decades prior. A botanist by the name of Carolus Clusius who in the 1590s had begun an important botanical garden at the University of Leiden, was one of the first to really pioneer the cultivation of tulips in the Netherlands. He had his own private garden in which he planted numerous bright and beautiful tulips and devoted much of his later life to studying the tulip and the mysterious phenomenon known as tulip breaking. Tulip Breaking and the Allure of the Diseased Bloom Tulip breaking is key to the story of the tulip mania. It was a strange occurrence in which the petal colors of the flower suddenly changed into multicolored patterns. Many years later it turned out that these strange looking tulips were actually the result of a virus that had infected them. Nonetheless, these essentially diseased multicolored tulips did nothing but serve to ramp up the tulip craze further. The mesmerizing diseased tulips became even more valuable than the uninfected ones and Dutch botanists began to compete with each other to cultivate new hybrid and more beautiful varieties of tulips. These became known as “cultivars” and would be traded among a small group of botanists and other flower aficionados. As time passed, the trade grew out from the group and botanists began to receive requests from people they did not know for not only the flowers, but the bulbs and seeds in exchange for money. Tulip brokerages began to open up and what was originally a “gentlemanly pursuit” turned into an all-out war for profits. A Golden Age for Trade — and Speculation Part of what helped this interest in Tulips grow, along with people’s willingness to exchange money for them, was the fact that the Netherlands in the early part of the 1600s had become the richest country in Europe mostly through trade. During this Dutch Golden Age, not only were there aristocrats with money, but middle-class merchants, artisans and tradesmen also found themselves with extra coin burning a hole in their pockets. Basically, this meant more people were able to spend money on luxuries such as cultivars that perhaps in other European countries would not have been commonplace. Besides the fact that people had money up and down the social class structure, the Netherlands and specifically Amsterdam already had robust trading platforms. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange opened in 1602 and the Baltic Grain Trade, an informal futures market itself, had begun decades earlier. The Netherlands was therefore primed for a new trade, which was to become Tulip Mania. The Bubble Inflates Tulips became the talk of the fledgling Dutch Republic.  “Neighbors seemed to talk to neighbors; colleagues with colleagues; shopkeepers, booksellers, bakers, and doctors with their clients gives one the sense of a community gripped, for a time, by this new fascination and enthralled by a sudden vision of its profitability,” wrote Anne Goldgar in Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age.  By the 1620s, prices were already rising to incredible levels. One story in particular was of an entire townhouse offered in exchange for just 10 bulbs of the very special cultivar, Semper Augustus (shown to the right), that had petals that looked a bit like a candy cane. Although the offer of an entire house for just 10 bulbs was incredible in its own right, the fact that the offer was rejected outlines just how much these flowers were considered to be worth at the time. In the years that followed it became more and more apparent that the tulip bulbs themselves were going for more money than the actual bloomed flowers. Speculators piled into the markets like wildfire, trading the bulbs rather than the flowers, which resulted in what you might call a futures market. By 1633, rather than bother with guilders, the Dutch even began using the bulbs as a currency themselves. There are numerous records of land properties being sold for bulbs. At the time, guilders and florins referred to the same Dutch currency and were used interchangeably throughout the 17th century. As word spread that one could make ridiculous sums of money simply by buying and selling the bulbs, prices skyrocketed even higher. According to the BBC, in 1633 a single bulb of Semper Augustus was worth 5,500 guilders. 4 years later in 1637, the sum had nearly doubled to 10,000 guilders. A bulb worth 10,000 guilders in 1637 would be roughly equivalent to €100,000–€120,000 today. You may be wondering what a guilder is—the guilder was the Dutch currency up until the adoption of the Euro. Having said that, to put the above numbers into perspective, according to Mike Dash who wrote Tulipomania: The Story of the World’s Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused, “It was enough to feed, clothe and house a whole Dutch family for half a lifetime, or sufficient to purchase one

So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor @ZohranKMamdani ???? pic.twitter.com/nvR5Zb46TI — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) November 5, 2025 Alex Soros, heir to the Open Society Foundations, publicly congratulated Zohran Mamdani on securing the far left’s position in New York. “So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Soros wrote. Zohran Mamdani is NOT an anti-establishment candidate—he is an anti-Trump and anti-American puppet installed by the billionaire globalists. Neo-Marxists only want to eat the rich who do not support their causes. But first, they need to starve and confuse the masses so that they target the “rich” rather than the government. Soros paid good money to help Mamdani’s campaign, donating between $24 to $37 million on groups like DSA and Working Families Party that supported the Democratic candidate. President Donald Trump previously suggested that Alex and George Soros be charged with RICO due to their open support for violent protests across the nation, with the most recent one surrounding Palestine. “George Soros, and his Wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE.” What happens when neo-Marxism combines with Islam? New York will be the test subject. Mamdani famously supported the slogan, “Globalize the intifada,” which he hailed as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and refuses to denounce Shira Law. “I think critiques of the state of Israel are critiques of a government, as opposed to critiques of a people and of a faith,” Mamdani said. “And my job is to represent every single New Yorker, and I will do so no matter their thoughts and opinions on Israel and Palestine, of which millions of New Yorkers have very strong views — and I’m one of them.” He is not against the Jews, like his friend Alex Soros; he is simply against all things Western. As George Soros said in 1995: “The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change and there is no blueprint. What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about. They mobilized the energies of the people in the countries concerned.” Mamdani is the puppet that will be used to lead the mobilization of globalization, starting by fueling New York’s welfare state to make the people dependent on government. George Soros has always wanted to control NYC, and now he has it in his pocket. The mayor has limited power and will not be able to implement all the lavish promises he spewed at the podium. Yet this is a big step toward converting cities and then states to destabilize the collectiveness of the United States in the hopes that its place as the world’s superpower will vanish.

The Roots of Tulip Mania So, what is the story with the tulip mania? Well, as some may be aware, the tulip is a national symbol of the Netherlands. The country is affectionately known by some as “the flower shop of the world.” If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands, you’ve probably seen some or visited some of the beautifully cultivated fields of colorful tulips lining the landscape of the Dutch countryside. There are countless tulip museums and tulip festivals are still celebrated annually throughout the country. The Dutch people even took their love of tulips abroad when emigrating from their homeland, starting up tulip festivals in places like New York (which Holland.com points out was originally known as New Amsterdam) and in the town aptly named Holland located in the U.S. state of Michigan. Despite this near obsession with tulips, the flower is not native to the Netherlands. They are actually native to the Pamir and Tan Shan mountain ranges located in Central Asia primarily in modern-day Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. They were brought to the Netherlands in the late-16th century from the Ottoman Empire where the flower had been cultivated for decades prior. A botanist by the name of Carolus Clusius who in the 1590s had begun an important botanical garden at the University of Leiden, was one of the first to really pioneer the cultivation of tulips in the Netherlands. He had his own private garden in which he planted numerous bright and beautiful tulips and devoted much of his later life to studying the tulip and the mysterious phenomenon known as tulip breaking. Tulip Breaking and the Allure of the Diseased Bloom Tulip breaking is key to the story of the tulip mania. It was a strange occurrence in which the petal colors of the flower suddenly changed into multicolored patterns. Many years later it turned out that these strange looking tulips were actually the result of a virus that had infected them. Nonetheless, these essentially diseased multicolored tulips did nothing but serve to ramp up the tulip craze further. The mesmerizing diseased tulips became even more valuable than the uninfected ones and Dutch botanists began to compete with each other to cultivate new hybrid and more beautiful varieties of tulips. These became known as “cultivars” and would be traded among a small group of botanists and other flower aficionados. As time passed, the trade grew out from the group and botanists began to receive requests from people they did not know for not only the flowers, but the bulbs and seeds in exchange for money. Tulip brokerages began to open up and what was originally a “gentlemanly pursuit” turned into an all-out war for profits. A Golden Age for Trade — and Speculation Part of what helped this interest in Tulips grow, along with people’s willingness to exchange money for them, was the fact that the Netherlands in the early part of the 1600s had become the richest country in Europe mostly through trade. During this Dutch Golden Age, not only were there aristocrats with money, but middle-class merchants, artisans and tradesmen also found themselves with extra coin burning a hole in their pockets. Basically, this meant more people were able to spend money on luxuries such as cultivars that perhaps in other European countries would not have been commonplace. Besides the fact that people had money up and down the social class structure, the Netherlands and specifically Amsterdam already had robust trading platforms. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange opened in 1602 and the Baltic Grain Trade, an informal futures market itself, had begun decades earlier. The Netherlands was therefore primed for a new trade, which was to become Tulip Mania. The Bubble Inflates Tulips became the talk of the fledgling Dutch Republic.  “Neighbors seemed to talk to neighbors; colleagues with colleagues; shopkeepers, booksellers, bakers, and doctors with their clients gives one the sense of a community gripped, for a time, by this new fascination and enthralled by a sudden vision of its profitability,” wrote Anne Goldgar in Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age.  By the 1620s, prices were already rising to incredible levels. One story in particular was of an entire townhouse offered in exchange for just 10 bulbs of the very special cultivar, Semper Augustus (shown to the right), that had petals that looked a bit like a candy cane. Although the offer of an entire house for just 10 bulbs was incredible in its own right, the fact that the offer was rejected outlines just how much these flowers were considered to be worth at the time. In the years that followed it became more and more apparent that the tulip bulbs themselves were going for more money than the actual bloomed flowers. Speculators piled into the markets like wildfire, trading the bulbs rather than the flowers, which resulted in what you might call a futures market. By 1633, rather than bother with guilders, the Dutch even began using the bulbs as a currency themselves. There are numerous records of land properties being sold for bulbs. At the time, guilders and florins referred to the same Dutch currency and were used interchangeably throughout the 17th century. As word spread that one could make ridiculous sums of money simply by buying and selling the bulbs, prices skyrocketed even higher. According to the BBC, in 1633 a single bulb of Semper Augustus was worth 5,500 guilders. 4 years later in 1637, the sum had nearly doubled to 10,000 guilders. A bulb worth 10,000 guilders in 1637 would be roughly equivalent to €100,000–€120,000 today. You may be wondering what a guilder is—the guilder was the Dutch currency up until the adoption of the Euro. Having said that, to put the above numbers into perspective, according to Mike Dash who wrote Tulipomania: The Story of the World’s Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused, “It was enough to feed, clothe and house a whole Dutch family for half a lifetime, or sufficient to purchase one

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BBC-Fakes-News.mp4   The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say. What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!! There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire. The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press. While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.  The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation. My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!! Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners. Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.” Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives. Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate. Defamation Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional. It is

The Roots of Tulip Mania So, what is the story with the tulip mania? Well, as some may be aware, the tulip is a national symbol of the Netherlands. The country is affectionately known by some as “the flower shop of the world.” If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands, you’ve probably seen some or visited some of the beautifully cultivated fields of colorful tulips lining the landscape of the Dutch countryside. There are countless tulip museums and tulip festivals are still celebrated annually throughout the country. The Dutch people even took their love of tulips abroad when emigrating from their homeland, starting up tulip festivals in places like New York (which Holland.com points out was originally known as New Amsterdam) and in the town aptly named Holland located in the U.S. state of Michigan. Despite this near obsession with tulips, the flower is not native to the Netherlands. They are actually native to the Pamir and Tan Shan mountain ranges located in Central Asia primarily in modern-day Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. They were brought to the Netherlands in the late-16th century from the Ottoman Empire where the flower had been cultivated for decades prior. A botanist by the name of Carolus Clusius who in the 1590s had begun an important botanical garden at the University of Leiden, was one of the first to really pioneer the cultivation of tulips in the Netherlands. He had his own private garden in which he planted numerous bright and beautiful tulips and devoted much of his later life to studying the tulip and the mysterious phenomenon known as tulip breaking. Tulip Breaking and the Allure of the Diseased Bloom Tulip breaking is key to the story of the tulip mania. It was a strange occurrence in which the petal colors of the flower suddenly changed into multicolored patterns. Many years later it turned out that these strange looking tulips were actually the result of a virus that had infected them. Nonetheless, these essentially diseased multicolored tulips did nothing but serve to ramp up the tulip craze further. The mesmerizing diseased tulips became even more valuable than the uninfected ones and Dutch botanists began to compete with each other to cultivate new hybrid and more beautiful varieties of tulips. These became known as “cultivars” and would be traded among a small group of botanists and other flower aficionados. As time passed, the trade grew out from the group and botanists began to receive requests from people they did not know for not only the flowers, but the bulbs and seeds in exchange for money. Tulip brokerages began to open up and what was originally a “gentlemanly pursuit” turned into an all-out war for profits. A Golden Age for Trade — and Speculation Part of what helped this interest in Tulips grow, along with people’s willingness to exchange money for them, was the fact that the Netherlands in the early part of the 1600s had become the richest country in Europe mostly through trade. During this Dutch Golden Age, not only were there aristocrats with money, but middle-class merchants, artisans and tradesmen also found themselves with extra coin burning a hole in their pockets. Basically, this meant more people were able to spend money on luxuries such as cultivars that perhaps in other European countries would not have been commonplace. Besides the fact that people had money up and down the social class structure, the Netherlands and specifically Amsterdam already had robust trading platforms. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange opened in 1602 and the Baltic Grain Trade, an informal futures market itself, had begun decades earlier. The Netherlands was therefore primed for a new trade, which was to become Tulip Mania. The Bubble Inflates Tulips became the talk of the fledgling Dutch Republic.  “Neighbors seemed to talk to neighbors; colleagues with colleagues; shopkeepers, booksellers, bakers, and doctors with their clients gives one the sense of a community gripped, for a time, by this new fascination and enthralled by a sudden vision of its profitability,” wrote Anne Goldgar in Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age.  By the 1620s, prices were already rising to incredible levels. One story in particular was of an entire townhouse offered in exchange for just 10 bulbs of the very special cultivar, Semper Augustus (shown to the right), that had petals that looked a bit like a candy cane. Although the offer of an entire house for just 10 bulbs was incredible in its own right, the fact that the offer was rejected outlines just how much these flowers were considered to be worth at the time. In the years that followed it became more and more apparent that the tulip bulbs themselves were going for more money than the actual bloomed flowers. Speculators piled into the markets like wildfire, trading the bulbs rather than the flowers, which resulted in what you might call a futures market. By 1633, rather than bother with guilders, the Dutch even began using the bulbs as a currency themselves. There are numerous records of land properties being sold for bulbs. At the time, guilders and florins referred to the same Dutch currency and were used interchangeably throughout the 17th century. As word spread that one could make ridiculous sums of money simply by buying and selling the bulbs, prices skyrocketed even higher. According to the BBC, in 1633 a single bulb of Semper Augustus was worth 5,500 guilders. 4 years later in 1637, the sum had nearly doubled to 10,000 guilders. A bulb worth 10,000 guilders in 1637 would be roughly equivalent to €100,000–€120,000 today. You may be wondering what a guilder is—the guilder was the Dutch currency up until the adoption of the Euro. Having said that, to put the above numbers into perspective, according to Mike Dash who wrote Tulipomania: The Story of the World’s Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused, “It was enough to feed, clothe and house a whole Dutch family for half a lifetime, or sufficient to purchase one

So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor @ZohranKMamdani ???? pic.twitter.com/nvR5Zb46TI — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) November 5, 2025 Alex Soros, heir to the Open Society Foundations, publicly congratulated Zohran Mamdani on securing the far left’s position in New York. “So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Soros wrote. Zohran Mamdani is NOT an anti-establishment candidate—he is an anti-Trump and anti-American puppet installed by the billionaire globalists. Neo-Marxists only want to eat the rich who do not support their causes. But first, they need to starve and confuse the masses so that they target the “rich” rather than the government. Soros paid good money to help Mamdani’s campaign, donating between $24 to $37 million on groups like DSA and Working Families Party that supported the Democratic candidate. President Donald Trump previously suggested that Alex and George Soros be charged with RICO due to their open support for violent protests across the nation, with the most recent one surrounding Palestine. “George Soros, and his Wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE.” What happens when neo-Marxism combines with Islam? New York will be the test subject. Mamdani famously supported the slogan, “Globalize the intifada,” which he hailed as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and refuses to denounce Shira Law. “I think critiques of the state of Israel are critiques of a government, as opposed to critiques of a people and of a faith,” Mamdani said. “And my job is to represent every single New Yorker, and I will do so no matter their thoughts and opinions on Israel and Palestine, of which millions of New Yorkers have very strong views — and I’m one of them.” He is not against the Jews, like his friend Alex Soros; he is simply against all things Western. As George Soros said in 1995: “The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change and there is no blueprint. What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about. They mobilized the energies of the people in the countries concerned.” Mamdani is the puppet that will be used to lead the mobilization of globalization, starting by fueling New York’s welfare state to make the people dependent on government. George Soros has always wanted to control NYC, and now he has it in his pocket. The mayor has limited power and will not be able to implement all the lavish promises he spewed at the podium. Yet this is a big step toward converting cities and then states to destabilize the collectiveness of the United States in the hopes that its place as the world’s superpower will vanish.

The Roots of Tulip Mania So, what is the story with the tulip mania? Well, as some may be aware, the tulip is a national symbol of the Netherlands. The country is affectionately known by some as “the flower shop of the world.” If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands, you’ve probably seen some or visited some of the beautifully cultivated fields of colorful tulips lining the landscape of the Dutch countryside. There are countless tulip museums and tulip festivals are still celebrated annually throughout the country. The Dutch people even took their love of tulips abroad when emigrating from their homeland, starting up tulip festivals in places like New York (which Holland.com points out was originally known as New Amsterdam) and in the town aptly named Holland located in the U.S. state of Michigan. Despite this near obsession with tulips, the flower is not native to the Netherlands. They are actually native to the Pamir and Tan Shan mountain ranges located in Central Asia primarily in modern-day Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. They were brought to the Netherlands in the late-16th century from the Ottoman Empire where the flower had been cultivated for decades prior. A botanist by the name of Carolus Clusius who in the 1590s had begun an important botanical garden at the University of Leiden, was one of the first to really pioneer the cultivation of tulips in the Netherlands. He had his own private garden in which he planted numerous bright and beautiful tulips and devoted much of his later life to studying the tulip and the mysterious phenomenon known as tulip breaking. Tulip Breaking and the Allure of the Diseased Bloom Tulip breaking is key to the story of the tulip mania. It was a strange occurrence in which the petal colors of the flower suddenly changed into multicolored patterns. Many years later it turned out that these strange looking tulips were actually the result of a virus that had infected them. Nonetheless, these essentially diseased multicolored tulips did nothing but serve to ramp up the tulip craze further. The mesmerizing diseased tulips became even more valuable than the uninfected ones and Dutch botanists began to compete with each other to cultivate new hybrid and more beautiful varieties of tulips. These became known as “cultivars” and would be traded among a small group of botanists and other flower aficionados. As time passed, the trade grew out from the group and botanists began to receive requests from people they did not know for not only the flowers, but the bulbs and seeds in exchange for money. Tulip brokerages began to open up and what was originally a “gentlemanly pursuit” turned into an all-out war for profits. A Golden Age for Trade — and Speculation Part of what helped this interest in Tulips grow, along with people’s willingness to exchange money for them, was the fact that the Netherlands in the early part of the 1600s had become the richest country in Europe mostly through trade. During this Dutch Golden Age, not only were there aristocrats with money, but middle-class merchants, artisans and tradesmen also found themselves with extra coin burning a hole in their pockets. Basically, this meant more people were able to spend money on luxuries such as cultivars that perhaps in other European countries would not have been commonplace. Besides the fact that people had money up and down the social class structure, the Netherlands and specifically Amsterdam already had robust trading platforms. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange opened in 1602 and the Baltic Grain Trade, an informal futures market itself, had begun decades earlier. The Netherlands was therefore primed for a new trade, which was to become Tulip Mania. The Bubble Inflates Tulips became the talk of the fledgling Dutch Republic.  “Neighbors seemed to talk to neighbors; colleagues with colleagues; shopkeepers, booksellers, bakers, and doctors with their clients gives one the sense of a community gripped, for a time, by this new fascination and enthralled by a sudden vision of its profitability,” wrote Anne Goldgar in Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age.  By the 1620s, prices were already rising to incredible levels. One story in particular was of an entire townhouse offered in exchange for just 10 bulbs of the very special cultivar, Semper Augustus (shown to the right), that had petals that looked a bit like a candy cane. Although the offer of an entire house for just 10 bulbs was incredible in its own right, the fact that the offer was rejected outlines just how much these flowers were considered to be worth at the time. In the years that followed it became more and more apparent that the tulip bulbs themselves were going for more money than the actual bloomed flowers. Speculators piled into the markets like wildfire, trading the bulbs rather than the flowers, which resulted in what you might call a futures market. By 1633, rather than bother with guilders, the Dutch even began using the bulbs as a currency themselves. There are numerous records of land properties being sold for bulbs. At the time, guilders and florins referred to the same Dutch currency and were used interchangeably throughout the 17th century. As word spread that one could make ridiculous sums of money simply by buying and selling the bulbs, prices skyrocketed even higher. According to the BBC, in 1633 a single bulb of Semper Augustus was worth 5,500 guilders. 4 years later in 1637, the sum had nearly doubled to 10,000 guilders. A bulb worth 10,000 guilders in 1637 would be roughly equivalent to €100,000–€120,000 today. You may be wondering what a guilder is—the guilder was the Dutch currency up until the adoption of the Euro. Having said that, to put the above numbers into perspective, according to Mike Dash who wrote Tulipomania: The Story of the World’s Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused, “It was enough to feed, clothe and house a whole Dutch family for half a lifetime, or sufficient to purchase one

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BBC-Fakes-News.mp4   The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say. What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!! There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire. The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press. While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.  The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation. My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!! Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners. Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.” Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives. Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate. Defamation Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional. It is

The Roots of Tulip Mania So, what is the story with the tulip mania? Well, as some may be aware, the tulip is a national symbol of the Netherlands. The country is affectionately known by some as “the flower shop of the world.” If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands, you’ve probably seen some or visited some of the beautifully cultivated fields of colorful tulips lining the landscape of the Dutch countryside. There are countless tulip museums and tulip festivals are still celebrated annually throughout the country. The Dutch people even took their love of tulips abroad when emigrating from their homeland, starting up tulip festivals in places like New York (which Holland.com points out was originally known as New Amsterdam) and in the town aptly named Holland located in the U.S. state of Michigan. Despite this near obsession with tulips, the flower is not native to the Netherlands. They are actually native to the Pamir and Tan Shan mountain ranges located in Central Asia primarily in modern-day Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. They were brought to the Netherlands in the late-16th century from the Ottoman Empire where the flower had been cultivated for decades prior. A botanist by the name of Carolus Clusius who in the 1590s had begun an important botanical garden at the University of Leiden, was one of the first to really pioneer the cultivation of tulips in the Netherlands. He had his own private garden in which he planted numerous bright and beautiful tulips and devoted much of his later life to studying the tulip and the mysterious phenomenon known as tulip breaking. Tulip Breaking and the Allure of the Diseased Bloom Tulip breaking is key to the story of the tulip mania. It was a strange occurrence in which the petal colors of the flower suddenly changed into multicolored patterns. Many years later it turned out that these strange looking tulips were actually the result of a virus that had infected them. Nonetheless, these essentially diseased multicolored tulips did nothing but serve to ramp up the tulip craze further. The mesmerizing diseased tulips became even more valuable than the uninfected ones and Dutch botanists began to compete with each other to cultivate new hybrid and more beautiful varieties of tulips. These became known as “cultivars” and would be traded among a small group of botanists and other flower aficionados. As time passed, the trade grew out from the group and botanists began to receive requests from people they did not know for not only the flowers, but the bulbs and seeds in exchange for money. Tulip brokerages began to open up and what was originally a “gentlemanly pursuit” turned into an all-out war for profits. A Golden Age for Trade — and Speculation Part of what helped this interest in Tulips grow, along with people’s willingness to exchange money for them, was the fact that the Netherlands in the early part of the 1600s had become the richest country in Europe mostly through trade. During this Dutch Golden Age, not only were there aristocrats with money, but middle-class merchants, artisans and tradesmen also found themselves with extra coin burning a hole in their pockets. Basically, this meant more people were able to spend money on luxuries such as cultivars that perhaps in other European countries would not have been commonplace. Besides the fact that people had money up and down the social class structure, the Netherlands and specifically Amsterdam already had robust trading platforms. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange opened in 1602 and the Baltic Grain Trade, an informal futures market itself, had begun decades earlier. The Netherlands was therefore primed for a new trade, which was to become Tulip Mania. The Bubble Inflates Tulips became the talk of the fledgling Dutch Republic.  “Neighbors seemed to talk to neighbors; colleagues with colleagues; shopkeepers, booksellers, bakers, and doctors with their clients gives one the sense of a community gripped, for a time, by this new fascination and enthralled by a sudden vision of its profitability,” wrote Anne Goldgar in Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age.  By the 1620s, prices were already rising to incredible levels. One story in particular was of an entire townhouse offered in exchange for just 10 bulbs of the very special cultivar, Semper Augustus (shown to the right), that had petals that looked a bit like a candy cane. Although the offer of an entire house for just 10 bulbs was incredible in its own right, the fact that the offer was rejected outlines just how much these flowers were considered to be worth at the time. In the years that followed it became more and more apparent that the tulip bulbs themselves were going for more money than the actual bloomed flowers. Speculators piled into the markets like wildfire, trading the bulbs rather than the flowers, which resulted in what you might call a futures market. By 1633, rather than bother with guilders, the Dutch even began using the bulbs as a currency themselves. There are numerous records of land properties being sold for bulbs. At the time, guilders and florins referred to the same Dutch currency and were used interchangeably throughout the 17th century. As word spread that one could make ridiculous sums of money simply by buying and selling the bulbs, prices skyrocketed even higher. According to the BBC, in 1633 a single bulb of Semper Augustus was worth 5,500 guilders. 4 years later in 1637, the sum had nearly doubled to 10,000 guilders. A bulb worth 10,000 guilders in 1637 would be roughly equivalent to €100,000–€120,000 today. You may be wondering what a guilder is—the guilder was the Dutch currency up until the adoption of the Euro. Having said that, to put the above numbers into perspective, according to Mike Dash who wrote Tulipomania: The Story of the World’s Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused, “It was enough to feed, clothe and house a whole Dutch family for half a lifetime, or sufficient to purchase one