• These Are The Nationalities Supporting Britain's HNS The Most
  These Are The Nationalities Supporting Britain’s HNS The Most

  Like the country it serves, the strength of the NHS is closely linked to its diversity.

  Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes that the most recent figures for NHS England show large numbers of its staff are not UK/British nationals, and have their roots all around the world.

  The most common non-UK nationality is Indian, with almost 26 thousand as of 2020. Filipinos make the second largest group, with over 22 thousand, while staff from Ireland are the third most represented at more than 13 thousand.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Looking at the whole picture, 13.8 percent of all staff for which the nationality is known are non-UK nationals, representing around 170,000 of the 1.28 million strong workforce. People from the EU play an important role, with 9.1 percent of doctors and 6.0 percent of nurses coming from a country in the Union.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/25/2021 – 02:45

• UK Would Send Warships Though Crimea Waters Again, Minister Says
  UK Would Send Warships Though Crimea Waters Again, Minister Says

  Authored by Lily Zhou via The Epoch Times,

  British Warships would go through disputed waters around Crimea again, a UK cabinet minister said after Russia accused a British destroyer of breaching Russian waters.

  

  Russia said on June 23 that it fired shots and dropped bombs in the path of the UK’s HMS Defender near Cape Fiolent, a landmark on the southern coast of Crimea near the port of Sevastopol, headquarters of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea fleet.

  Russian media quoted the defense ministry as saying the ship ventured as much as three kilometers (two miles) inside Russian waters before leaving.

  The UK has denied Russia’s claim, saying that the Russians were undertaking a gunnery exercise and that no shots had been fired at the British Warship, which was “conducting innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters.”

  Russia seized and annexed the Crimea peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and it considers areas around the peninsula’s coast to be Russian waters. Western countries consider the peninsula to be part of Ukraine and have rejected Russia’s claim to the seas around it.

  The UK’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs George Eustice said on June 24 that the British warship was taking a “logical route.”

  “Under international law, you can take the closest, fastest route from one point to another. HMS Defender was passing through Ukrainian waters, I think on the way to Georgia, and that was the logical route for it to take,” he told Sky News.

  Eustice said the practice is “very normal” and “quite common.”

  “What was actually going on is the Russians were doing a gunnery exercise. They had given prior notice of that. They often do in that area,” he said, adding that it’s important that people don’t get carried away.

  Asked if the government would do it again, Eustice replied: “Of course, yes.

  “We never accepted the annexation of Crimea, these were Ukrainian territorial waters.”

  

  HMS Defender on March 20, 2020. (Ben Mitchell/PA)

  Speaking to ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” program, Eustice said that he doesn’t know if the gunnery exercise was the “official reason” given for the Russian activities.

  “Whether that was cover for them to try and make some point, we don’t know,” he said. “Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t.”

  Former Royal Navy Chief Admiral Lord Alan West told the London Broadcasting Company that “there’s no doubt the Defender was asserting her right of innocent passage from one port to another.”

  He said Russian President Vladimir Putin was “an expert at disinformation,” and that his “appalling” behavior was to show his toughness to his “home audience.”

  Former head of the Army, Gen. Lord Richard Dannatt, said that Putin is “testing the will of the West.”

  “I’m a little bit surprised that the Ministry of Defence is playing it down,” he told Sky News.

  “It was unreasonable of the Russians to challenge HMS Defender in the way that they did.

  “The underlying point is that there are international laws that must be upheld by everyone, and HMS Defender had the absolute right to be where she was yesterday.”

  Earlier on June 24, the UK’s Foreign Minister Dominic Raab said that the Russian characterization of the event is “predictably inaccurate,” and Russia summoned the British ambassador in Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, over the row.

  Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on June 24 that the incident was “a deliberate and premeditated provocation” and threatened that “no options can be ruled out.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/25/2021 – 02:00

• The "Conspiracy Theory" Charade
  The “Conspiracy Theory” Charade

  Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com,

  How government and media use the phrase to suppress opposition…

  

  Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” report last week declared that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” In recent decades, conspiracy theories have multiplied almost as fast as government lies and cover-ups. While many allegations have been ludicrously far-fetched, the political establishment and media routinely attach the “conspiracy theory” label to any challenge to their dominance.

  According to Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law professor and Obama’s regulatory czar, a conspiracy theory is “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Reasonable citizens are supposed to presume that government creates trillions of pages of new secrets each year for their own good, not to hide anything from the public.  

  In the early 1960s, conspiracy theories were practically a non-issue because 75 percent of Americans trusted the federal government. Such credulity did not survive the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Seven days after Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson created a commission (later known as the Warren Commission) to suppress controversy about the killing. Johnson and FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover browbeat the commission members into speedily issuing a report rubberstamping the “crazed lone gunman” version of the assassination. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, revised the final staff report to change the location of where the bullet entered Kennedy’s body, thereby salvaging Hoover’s so-called “magic bullet” theory. After the Warren Commission findings were ridiculed as a whitewash, Johnson ordered the FBI to conduct wiretaps on the report’s critics. To protect the official story, the commission sealed key records for 75 years. Truth would out only after all the people involved in any coverup had gotten their pensions and died.

  The controversy surrounding the Warren Commission spurred the CIA to formally attack the notion of conspiracy theories. In a 1967 alert to its overseas stations and bases, the CIA declared that the fact that almost half of Americans did not believe Oswald acted alone “is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization” and endangers “the whole reputation of the American government.” The memo instructed recipients to “employ propaganda assets” and exploit “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out… parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” The ultimate proof of the government’s innocence: “Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.”

  However, the CIA did conceal a wide range of assassinations and foreign coups it conducted until congressional investigations in the mid-1970s blew the whistle. The New York Times, which exposed the CIA memo in 1977, noted that the CIA “mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.” According to historian Lance deHaven-Smith, author of Conspiracy Theory in America, “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited…with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” (In 2014, the CIA released a heavily-redacted report admitting that it had been “complicit” in a JFK “cover-up” by withholding “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission.)

  The Johnson administration also sought to portray critics of its Vietnam War policies as conspiracy nuts, at least when they were not portraying them as communist stooges. During 1968 Senate hearings on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara denounced the “monstrous insinuations” that the U.S. had sought to provoke a North Vietnamese attack and declared that it is “inconceivable that anyone even remotely familiar with our society and system of government could suspect the existence of a conspiracy” to take the nation to war on false pretenses. Three years later, the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers demolished the credibility of McNamara and other top Johnson administration officials who indeed dragged America into the Vietnam War on false pretenses.

  Condemnations of conspiracy theories became a hallmark of the Clinton administration. In 1995, President Bill Clinton claimed that people who believed government threatened their constitutional right were deranged ingrates: “If you say that Government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong…. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes!” The same year, the White House compiled a fevered 331-page report entitled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” attacking magazines, think tanks, and others that had criticized President Clinton. In the following years, many of the organizations condemned in the White House report were targeted for IRS audits, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Spectator magazine and almost a dozen individual high-profile Clinton accusers, including Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers. Despite Clinton’s protestations that he posed no threat to freedom, even the ACLU admitted in 1998 that the Clinton administration had “engaged in surreptitious surveillance, such as wiretapping, on a far greater scale than ever before… The Administration is using scare tactics to acquire vast new powers to spy on all Americans.”

  Some “conspiracy theory” allegations comically expose the naivete of official scorekeepers. In April 2016, Chapman University surveyed Americans and announced that “the most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States is that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief.”  That survey did not ask whether people believed the World Trade Centers were blown up by an inside job or whether President George W. Bush secretly masterminded the attacks. Instead, folks were simply asked whether “government is concealing information” about the attacks. Only a village idiot, college professor, or editorial writer would presume the government had come clean. Three months after the Chapman University survey was conducted, the Obama administration finally released 28 pages of a 2003 congressional report that revealed that Saudi government officials had directly financed some of the 9/11 hijackers in America. That disclosure shattered the storyline carefully constructed by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission, and legions of media accomplices. (Lawsuits continue in federal court seeking to force the U.S. government to disclose more information regarding the Saudi government role in the attacks.)

  “Conspiracy theory” is often a flag of convenience for the media. In 2018, the New York Times asserted that Trump’s use of the term “Deep State” and similar rhetoric “fanned fears that he is eroding public trust in institutions, undermining the idea of objective truth and sowing widespread suspicions about the government and news media.” However, after allegations by anonymous government officials spurred Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, New York Times columnist James Stewart cheered, “There is a Deep State, there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law… They work for the American people.” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle proclaimed, “The deep state is alive and well” and hailed it as “a collection of patriotic public servants.” Almost immediately after its existence was no longer denied, the Deep State became the incarnation of virtue in Washington.

  The media elite can fabricate “conspiracy theory” designations almost with the flip of a headline. A week after Election Day 2020, the New York Times ran a banner headline across the top of the front page: “Election Officials Nationwide Find No Fraud.” How did the Times know? Their reporters effectively called each state and asked, “Did y’all see any fraud?” Election officials answered “no,” thus proving that anyone who subsequently questioned Biden’s victory was promoting a groundless conspiracy. While top liberal politicians denounced electronic voting companies as unaccountable and dishonest in 2019, any doubts about such companies became “conspiracies” after that headline in the Times. The Times helped spur a media cacophony drowning out anyone complaining about ballot harvesting, illegal mass mailing of absentee ballots, or widespread failures to verify voter identification.

  Actually, “conspiracy theory” accusations helped Biden win the 2020 presidential election. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently noted, if Americans believed that the COVID-19 virus was created in a Chinese government lab, Trump would have likely won the election because voters would have sought a leader who could be tough on China. But the lab origin explanation was quickly labeled a pro-Trump heresy. The Washington Post denounced Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR,) for suggesting the virus originated in the lab, which supposedly was a “conspiracy theory that was already debunked.” Twenty-seven prominent scientists signed a letter in the Lancet: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin… Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus.” The Lancet did not reveal until last week that one of the signers and the person who organized the letter signing campaign ran an organization that received U.S. government subsidies for its work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab. President Biden has ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to take another look to seek to determine the origin of COVID-19.

  Will “conspiracy theory” charges provide a “get out of jail free” card for the FBI and other federal agencies regarding the January 6 clash at the Capitol? After Fox News’s Tucker Carlson featured allegations that FBI informants or agents may have instigated the ruckus, the Washington Post speedily denounced his “wild, baseless theory” while Huffington Post denounced his “laughable conspiracy theory.” It doesn’t matter how often the FBI instigated terrorist plots or political violence in the past 60 years (including the plot to kidnap the Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer last November). Instead, decent people must do nothing to endanger the official narrative of Jan. 6 as a horrific private terrorist event on par with the War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attacks.

  “Conspiracy theory” is a magic phrase that expunges all previous federal abuses. Many liberals who invoke the phrase also ritually quote a 1965 book by former communist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter portrayed distrust of government as a proxy for mental illness, a paradigm that makes the character of critics more important than the conduct of government agencies. For Hofstadter, it was a self-evident truth that government was trustworthy because American politics had “a kind of professional code… embodying the practical wisdom of generations of politicians.”

   Much of the establishment rage at “conspiracy theories” has been driven by the notion that rulers are entitled intellectual passive obedience. The same lese-majeste mindset has been widely adopted to make a muddle of American history. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the court historian for President John F. Kennedy and a revered liberal intellectual, declared in a 2004 article in Playboy, “Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven to revolt in 1776 because of a false conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.” Was the British imposition of martial law, confiscation of firearms, military blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, and censorship simply a deranged fantasy of Thomas Jefferson? The notion that the British would never conspire to destroy freedom would play poorly in Dublin. Why would anyone trust academics who were blind to British threats in the 1770s to accurately judge contemporary perils to liberty?

  How does the Biden administration intend to fight “conspiracy theories”? The Biden terrorism report called for “enhancing faith in government” by “accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse.” Will Biden’s team rely on the “solution” suggested by Cass Sunstein: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by government agents and informants to “undermine” them from within? A 1976 Senate report on the FBI COINTELPRO program demanded assurances that a federal agency would never again “be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order.” Actually, the FBI and other agencies have continued secretly warring against “threats” and legions of informants are likely busy “cognitively infiltrating” at this moment.

  “Conspiracy theory” will remain a favorite sneer of the political-media elite. There is no substitute for Americans developing better B.S radars for government claims as well as wild-eyed private balderdash. In the meantime, there’s always the remedy a Washington Post health article touted late last year: “Try guided imagery. Visualizing positive outcomes can help clamp down on the intense emotions that might make you more vulnerable to harmful conspiracy theories.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/25/2021 – 00:05

• Visualizing US Droughts Over The Last 20 Years
  Visualizing US Droughts Over The Last 20 Years

  The Western U.S. is experiencing one of the worst recorded droughts in the last 20 years.

  Temperatures from California to the Dakotas are currently hovering around 9-12°F above average – but, as Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang asks (and answers below), how bad is the situation compared to past years?

  This animated map by reddit user /NothingAbnormalHere provides a historical look at droughts in the U.S. since 1999, using data and graphics from the U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM).

  What is the U.S. Drought Monitor?

  Over the last two decades, the USDM has been tracking, measuring, and comparing droughts across America.

  While droughts can be difficult to classify and standardize, there are various factors that can be used to gauge when a region is experiencing drought. These include measurements of snowpack levels, soil moisture, and recent precipitation.

  To track these conditions (and make sense of them), the USDM synthesizes data from a plethora of meteorological sources, including the Palmer Drought Severity Index and the Standardized Precipitation Index.

  From there, conditions are broken down into categories, ranging from D0 (abnormally dry) to D4 (Exceptional Drought). A map is released each week that shows which states are experiencing drought, and to what degree.

  Where Are The Most Drought-Prone Areas?

  According to a map created by climatologist Becky Bolinger (which is published on Drought.gov), Arizona and Nevada are the most historically drought-prone states—the two have experienced drought more than 50% of the time tracked by the USDM.

  

  California is high on the list as well, with the state experiencing drought at least 40% of the time.

  As the historical data shows, the West is no stranger to droughts. However, this year’s drought has become particularly worrisome because of its intensity and breadth.

  Right now, more than a quarter of the West is experiencing a D4 level drought—a new record. To help put things into perspective, here’s a look at how much overall land area in the West has been in drought, since 2000:

  

  When a region is experiencing a D4 drought, possible impacts include:

  • Water Scarcity
    Lower reservoirs, combined with decreased snowpack lead to water shortages.

  • Crop losses
    Water shortages mean less water for fields, which can lead to acres of fallow (unused) farmland.

  • Wildfires
    Dry conditions and lack of moisture increase the risk of wildfires.

  Is This the New Norm?

  This record-breaking drought is wreaking havoc across the West. In California, reservoirs have about half as much water as they usually do, and crop failures are happening across Colorado.

  The worst part? Some experts believe that this could be the new normal if human-driven climate change continues to increase average temperatures across the globe.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 23:45

• Footage Of Bats Kept In Wuhan Lab Fuels Scrutiny Over Its Research
  Footage Of Bats Kept In Wuhan Lab Fuels Scrutiny Over Its Research

  By Eva Fu and Frank Yue of Epoch Times

  Official Chinese state-approved footage from years ago showing bats being kept at the Wuhan Institute of Virology has further fueled scrutiny of the research being conducted at the secretive facility.

  

  A 2017 promotional video featured on the website of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), a top Chinese state-run research institute that administers the Wuhan lab, showed live bats held in cages inside the lab. In it, a researcher who wears blue surgical gloves was holding a bat and feeding it with a worm.

  The video, made after the research institute obtained the nation’s first P4 designation—the highest bio-security classification—in spring 2017, also showed bats in a cage inside the lab. It said that the Wuhan lab researchers had collected more than 15,000 bat samples from various parts of China and Africa.

  

  While some overseas Chinese-language media had cited the video last year in reports that raised concerns about the lab, it has attracted more attention lately as the possibility that the virus may have escaped from a Chinese laboratory has gained traction.

  The WIV has filed at least two patents related to bat breeding. The first, filed in June 2018 and granted about half a year later, describes a bat rearing cage with a glass front door, hanger, feed opening, and water drinking tube, designed to enable bats “healthy growth and breeding under artificial condition.”

  

  The second, filed last October, instructs researchers on how to raise wild bats to improve breeding and survival rate.

  A description of the WIV on a CAS-affiliated webpage said the institute has three “barrier facilities” that enclose lab animals totaling nearly 13,100 square feet, in which there are 12 bat cages.

  The evidence of live bats being raised at WIV contradicted statements made by U.S. zoologist Peter Daszak, one of the World Health Organization-led experts who went to Wuhan City to study the origin of the virus earlier this year.

  Daszak, in a tweet last December that he has since deleted, took issue with an article from The Independent that stated that “samples from the bats were sent to the Wuhan laboratory for genetic analyses of the viruses collected in the field.”

  

  “Important error in this piece. No BATS were ‘sent to Wuhan lab for genetic analyses of viruses collected in the field,’” he wrote. “That’s not how this science works. We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. We RELEASE bats where we catch them!”

  

  He further stated that the article “describes work I’m the lead on & labs I’ve collaborated w/ for 15 yrs.”

  “They DO NOT have live or dead bats in them. There is no evidence anywhere that this happened. It’s an error that I hope will be corrected,” he said.

  Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit that conducts global health-related research, helped channel more than $800,000 in U.S. federal grants to the Wuhan lab to study bat coronaviruses, according to newly released internal documents.

  Daszak admitted on June 1—a week after leaked intelligence noted that three WIV researchers were hospitalized a month before China’s reported “patient zero”—that questions of whether the WIV had bats were never raised during the WHO investigation. Changing his stance, he added: “I wouldn’t be surprised if, like many other virology labs, they were trying to set up a bat colony.”

  Safety Lapses

  A scene from the same video of a bat dangling off the hat of a researcher, who wore only a pair of glasses and a regular surgical mask while collecting bat samples in the wild, has raised further questions about the security measures at the lab.

  

  Screenshots from a 2017 report on state-run broadcaster CCTV have also showed a WIV researcher’s arm blistering from a bat bite during their study of the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) virus.

  The bats “could bite your hands through the glove,” WIV researcher Cui Jie told CCTV. He described the feeling as similar to “being jabbed by a needle.” In other footage, marked with the date Dec. 28 but no year, another WIV researcher was holding a bat outdoors with both hands exposed.

  

  In 2018, U.S. officials who who visited the research facility sent cables back to Washington warning about weak safety standards at the lab.

  Two U.S. Embassy officials said the lab had a “serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” according to the cable seen by The Washington Post.

  Transparency Issues

  The Wuhan lab began as a collaborative project between China and France in 2004 to study emerging infectious diseases following the SARS outbreak, which spread from China to more than two dozen countries.

  The construction of the P4 lab was finalized in 2015. In 2017, former French Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve made the lab his first stop in Wuhan and attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony. The plan at the time was to have 50 French researchers go to the lab over the next five years. It never happened.

  The French scientists were quickly sidelined. The Franco-Chinese Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases, a group created for cooperation between the two sides, stopped holding meetings from 2016, according to France Bleu, part of the national public broadcasting group Radio France.

  The 2017 Wuhan lab video mentioned briefly the Sino-French collaboration, noting that the two sides had “more than a decade of intense clashes due to differences in cultural backgrounds and ideology.” It added that the P4 lab “will definitely contribute to the physical health of the public and the world peace” and serve as a “large scale world-class technology sharing hub.”

  The WIV’s raw data remains closed off to the WHO and other international experts. In September 2019, the facility made its main database of samples and viral sequences offline. The data bank was Asia’s largest as of 2018, according to a news release on the WIV website.

  

  Shi Zhengli, the director of the WIV’s research center for emerging infectious diseases who is now at the center of the virus controversy, maintained that the institute has been open to outside probes. Speaking recently with The New York Times, she called accusations of the lab withholding data “speculation rooted in utter distrust.”

  A January fact sheet from the State Department under the Trump administration said that WIV researchers had begun conducting experiments involving RaTG13, identified to have the closest genetic similarity to the COVID-19 virus, from as early as 2016.

  Besides engaging in “’gain of function’ research to engineer chimeric viruses,” the WIV has engaged in laboratory animal experiments on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017, according to the fact sheet. Gain-of-function research involves creating artificial viruses by adding new or enhanced capabilities for the purpose of studying what new pathogens could emerge and how to guard against them.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 23:25

• COVID Baby Bust Accelerates Nine Months After Lockdowns
  COVID Baby Bust Accelerates Nine Months After Lockdowns

  In a previous note last month, we said one of the biggest deflationary threats looms over the U.S. economy, that is, birth rates have fallen to their lowest level in a generation. Diving deeper into the baby bust, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows nine months after the virus pandemic was first declared a national emergency, U.S. births plunged 8% in December, according to Bloomberg. 

  CDC data showed an acceleration in birth declines for the second half of 2020. Full-year data shows that the number of babies born countrywide fell 4% to 3.6 million, the most significant decline since 1973, the start of the stagflation of the 1970s. 

  The latest CDC data disproves the mainstream media’s narrative of a “COVID Baby Boom” as much of the nation was cooped up in their homes during lockdowns. 

  The data appears to show millennials were not in the ‘mood’ to have a child during the global health catastrophe. The declines in births have been occurring for several years as the younger generation, trapped in insurmountable debts, can barely afford rent and groceries, nevertheless raise a child. 

  On a state-by-state basis, California in December led the declines, which plummeted 19%. For the second half of the year, New Mexico, New York, Hawaii, and West Virginia saw decreases ranging from 8% to 11%.

  We noted California’s population continues to drop as a mass exodus of residents escapes the liberal hell hole of high taxes, unaffordable homes, and violent crime. The younger generation in the state appears to be having fewer children, exacerbated by the pandemic. 

  Bloomberg shows a shocking chart that when factoring all the deaths in 2020 and into 1Q21, including virus-related deaths, U.S. births only exceeded deaths by 45,000 in February and March. 

  

  In terms of race, births in December had the most significant reduction among Asians, plunging 19% from the same period in 2019.

  What this shows are some early signs of a COVID baby bust. But most of this is a continuation of a trend that’s been happening for more than a decade. With birthrates faltering and debts soaring. We believe the primary secular economic trend is, and has been for at least a decade is deflation – as we’ve said before, Japan is a microcosm of what America is facing as the “3-D’s” of debt, deflation, and the inevitability of demographics implosion continues to widen the wealth gap. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 23:05

• Why Are Large Numbers Of Birds Suddenly Dropping Dead In Multiple US States?
  Why Are Large Numbers Of Birds Suddenly Dropping Dead In Multiple US States?

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  As if we didn’t have enough weird things going on, now birds are suddenly dropping dead in large numbers all across the eastern half of the country.  Before they die, a lot of these birds are exhibiting very strange symptoms.  Experts are telling us that in many cases birds are developing “crusty or puffy eyes”, and often they appear to go completely blind.  In addition, quite a few of these dying birds lose their ability to stay balanced, and we are being told that some even seem to be having “seizures”.  If scientists understood what was causing this to happen, that would be one thing.  But at this point they have no idea why this is taking place, and that is quite alarming.

  

  So far, confirmed incidents of this strange phenomenon have been documented in Washington D.C., Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana.

  Could it be possible that we are dealing with a “mystery disease” that started in one state and that has now spread to other surrounding states?

  Or is something else going on here?

  We are being told that “blue jays, common grackles and European starlings” are the most common birds that are being affected.

  But whatever is happening is not just limited to one species of birds, and I think that should be a red flag.

  If our best experts even had a decent working theory about why so many birds are dying, I probably would not have written this article.  But at this point they are openly admitting that they have absolutely no idea why so many birds are suddenly dropping dead…

  “We’re experiencing an unusual amount of bird mortality this year,” said Kate Slankard, an avian biologist with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. “We have yet to figure out what the problem is. The condition seems to be pretty deadly.”

  In Kentucky, the bird deaths seem to have begun in late May.  The following comes directly from the official website of the Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources…

  In late May, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources began receiving reports of sick and dying birds with eye swelling and crusty discharge, as well as neurological signs. Wildlife agencies in Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, Washington, D.C. and West Virginia have reported similar problems.

  State wildlife agencies are working with diagnostic laboratories to investigate the cause of mortality. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife has sent more than 20 samples for lab testing to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study at the University of Georgia. More results are pending, but no definitive cause of death has been identified at this time.

  After testing 20 samples, they still have no idea what is going on.

  According to Slankard, “hundreds of birds” in her state have now become victims…

  “They’ll just sit still, often kind of shaking,” Slankard said. “It’s pretty safe to say that hundreds of birds in the state have had this problem.”

  But of course the truth is that we have no way of knowing how many birds have actually been affected.

  It could be thousands of birds in the state.

  It could be hundreds of thousands.

  We just don’t know, and Kentucky is just one of the states that has been hit.

  In Indiana, authorities tested for avian flu and West Nile virus, but those tests came back negative…

  Indiana wildlife officials said there have been suspicious deaths of blue jays, robins, northern cardinals and brown-headed cowbirds in five counties. James Brindle, spokesman for the state’s Department of Natural Resources, said birds there have tested negative for avian influenza and West Nile virus.

  One theory that is floating around is that these birds are ingesting large amounts of pesticides because of all the cicadas that they are eating.

  Some experts are flatly dismissing that theory because “the disease has also appeared in states where cicadas are not present”.

  But how can they be so sure that it is a disease if they have absolutely no idea why this is happening?

  I don’t think that we should jump to any conclusions that are not backed up by science.

  Obviously a lot more testing needs to be done.  If it does turn out to be a disease that is causing this, is it a disease that can also spread to humans?  Moving forward, that could be one of the most important questions that needs to be answered.

  Hopefully we can get some solid answers, because this is not the first time something like this has happened.  Back in September, one expert said that it appeared that “hundreds of thousands” of birds were dropping dead in New Mexico…

  Wildlife experts in New Mexico say birds in the region are dropping dead in alarming numbers, potentially in the “hundreds of thousands.”

  “It appears to be an unprecedented and a very large number,” Martha Desmond, a professor at New Mexico State University’s department of fish, wildlife, and conservation ecology, told NBC’s Albuquerque affiliate KOB.

  But whatever was causing those deaths to happen in New Mexico seems to have stopped.

  Is there any connection between that event and the deaths that are happening in the eastern half of the country now?

  I wish that I had the answer to that question.

  We live at a time when pesticides, high technology and other forms of human activity are having a greater impact on birds and animals than ever before.  But we have also entered an era when I believe that great pestilences are going to become very common.

  Obviously something is killing all those birds, and hopefully scientists will have something solid to tell us very soon.

  With each passing day, our world is getting crazier, and so much is going wrong all around us.

  Many are hoping that 2020 and 2021 will just turn out to be anomalies, but I am entirely convinced that they are just the very small tip of a very large iceberg.

  *  *  *

  Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 22:45

• "Defund The Police" Movement 'Coincided' With Biggest Surge In US Violence Since The '60s, FBI Data Confirms
  “Defund The Police” Movement ‘Coincided’ With Biggest Surge In US Violence Since The ’60s, FBI Data Confirms

  Based on preliminary FBI data, America experienced one of its most murderous years in decades. Of course, let’s not forget this all happened during a socio-economic collapse thanks to the virus pandemic and resulting public officials who closed the economy, leaving tens of millions of people struggling to put food on the table. At the same time, millions of others raced to their local gun store to purchase guns and ammo as liberal-run cities were transformed into a violent mess. 

  Vox reports US’ murder rate likely increased by 25% or more in 2020, but official FBI data won’t be published until later this year. The numbers are likely to be historic. “That amounts to more than 20,000 murders in a year for the first time since 1995, up from about 16,000 in 2019,” according to crime analyst Jeff Asher. 

  

  John Roman, a criminal justice expert at NORC at the University of Chicago, told Vox that the 2020 murder surge “is the largest increase in violence we’ve seen since the 1960s when we started collecting formal crime statistics.” 

  Many experts, or at least the ones Vox sourced or interviewed, “still don’t know why murders surged last year.” 

  For starters, perhaps liberal-run cities defunding the police and deciding not to prosecute petty crime could be some of the triggers for the increased violent crime. 

  After all, Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison this week blamed the surge in violent crime on a “number of issues,” including a shortage in staff. This comes after Baltimore City Council defunded the police last year. The new mayor, Brandon Scott, reversed the policy and increased the city’s policing budget this year to get a handle on crime. 

  Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has also spoken up and blamed “defund the police” and progressive policies for the spike in crime across Los Angeles County. 

  Oregon’s largest newspaper, The Oregonian, admitted not too long ago that their previous endorsement of defunding was the wrong decision as crime surged across Portland. 

  We could go on and on about linking defunding the police to surging violent crime, but we’ll stop it at that. 

  Until law and order are restored, something former President Trump used to say daily, chaos will continue across major metro areas, and 2021 could become an even more violent year than last. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 22:25

• Does First Transgender Olympian Signal The Death Knell Of Female Sport?
  Does First Transgender Olympian Signal The Death Knell Of Female Sport?

  Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  It seems ridiculous to have to remind anyone of the obvious anatomical differences between males and females, but such is the state of the current world we live in.

  

  Laurel Hubbard will go down in the history books at the Tokyo Olympics as the first transgender athlete to compete at the Games.

  But the consequences of this decision for female athletes and women in general will be devastating and long-lasting.

  The day may be imminent when natural-born females are no longer represented on the Olympic medal podium as biological males start to make serious inroads into their sports.

  Laurel Hubbard, 43, is among five weightlifters chosen to represent New Zealand in the Tokyo Olympics to compete in the women’s 87-kilogram category. As an aside, he is also the progeny of Dick Hubbard, the former liberal mayor of Auckland. The criticism and controversy that has greeted the news of the first transgender athlete to participate in the Games does not seem misplaced. First, Hubbard, whose inclusion won the approval of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, will enjoy a competitive advantage over his contenders that has been scientifically proven to come with inborn male attributes.

  It seems ridiculous to have to remind anyone of the obvious anatomical differences between males and females, but such is the state of the current world we live in.

  According to one study, published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine, “trans women still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.”

  The developmental biologist Dr. Emma Hilton seconded this opinion.

  “Males can run faster, jump longer, throw further and lift heavier than females,” Hilton confirmed in a 2019 discussion.

  “They outperform females by 10% on the running track to 30% when throwing various balls.”

  Hilton went on to produce some sports trivia to support her claim:

  • there are 9,000 males between 100m world record holders Usain Bolt and Florence Griffith Joyner, the fastest woman of all time;

  • the current female 100m Olympic champion, Elaine Thompson, is slower than the 14 year old schoolboy record holder;

  • under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women’s National Team in a scrimmage.

  And so on.

  Those raw statistics are not meant to diminish, of course, the tremendous achievements made by female athletes. Rather, they are meant to demonstrate the very definite boundary that exists – or should exist – between male and female contenders. In fact, the physical differences between the sexes could actually come down to a matter of life and death. Already blood has been spilt.

  Transgender MMA Fighter Fallon Fox beat her female opponent Tamika Brents so severely that she suffered a broken skull. pic.twitter.com/S7HOMcA60j

  — #TartanTuesday 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿CITIZEN NOT SERF🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@TartantuesdayI) July 11, 2019

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Consider, for example, the 2014 Mixed Martial Arts contest between Fallon Fox and Tamikka Brents. Fox, the first transgender fighter in MMA history, subjected Brents to a violent beating that resulted in a fractured skull and concussion. How long before a female athlete suffers serious injury – possibly even death – at the hands of a transgender woman on the field of dreams?

  As worrisome as that possibility may be, the real issue for female athletes is that these biological males are simply seen as interlopers trespassing on their territory, disqualifying them from the right to perform. Just ask Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, 21, the woman who was deprived of making the Kiwi team due to the inclusion of Hubbard, who lived 35 years as a male before transitioning. As for Manumua, it would have been her first Olympics.

  This is Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, the woman who was ultimately displaced by inclusion of Laurel Hubbard.

  She’s 21, and it would have been her first Olympics. pic.twitter.com/l8RH0q0njz

  — Emma Hilton (@FondOfBeetles) June 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Criticism on the decision to include Hubbard on the New Zealand team has been fierce.

  Belgian weightlifter Anna Vanbellinghen said that allowing Hubbard to compete at Tokyo was unfair to female athletes, calling it “a bad joke.”

  New Zealander Daniel Leo, a former professional rugby player turned CEO, remarked in a tweet that the decision to include Hubbard “tarnishes [New Zealand’s] reputation BIG TIME.”

  Meanwhile, the British advocacy group, Fair Play for Women, slammed the IOC’s policy as “blatantly unfair.”

  “The IOC stated in its 2015 transgender guidelines that the overriding sporting objective is, and remains, the guarantee of fair competition,” remarked Nicola Williams, FPFW director.

  “But its current rules are blatantly unfair to women, and to trans gender women, who both want to play by rules which are fair to everybody.”

  In the United States, meanwhile, resistance to the madness has taken root. A number of state legislatures are opposed to the idea of permitting transgender women to play sports alongside women. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky, for example, are just some of the states that have passed legislation strictly forbidding the participation of biological males in female sports unless they have undergone full reassessment surgery and taken the relative hormones.

  Louisiana law, by way of example, states that the student-athlete is eligible to compete in the reassigned gender when, among other procedures, “surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy.” They even demand that “legal recognition of the sex reassignment has been conferred with all the proper governmental agencies (Driver’s license, voter registration, etc.).”

  Meanwhile, in ultra-liberal states, like California, Connecticut and Colorado, public schools are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. Now with Biden’s executive order on gender identity and sexual orientation in effect, schools are even legally required to let transgender females use the bathroom and changing facilities that match their gender identity, thereby invading the privacy of female students both on the field and in the locker room.

  ​Clearly, what needs to happen in order to ensure fairness and safety on the playing field (and in the locker room) is for more professional athletes to speak out on this alarming trend. One such brave woman is Czech-born American tennis star, Martina Navratilova, who is among a group of female athletes that launched the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group, which operates according to the idea that “if sports were not sex-segregated, female athletes would rarely be seen in finals or on victory podiums.”

  The 18-time winner of the Grand Slam title opposed a situation where “trans men and women, just based on their self-id, would be able to compete with no mitigation … that clearly would not be a level playing field.”

  Unfortunately, it appears that the IOC, by permitting Laurel Hubbard the right to compete alongside biological females, has taken a radically different view and approach on the matter, and this decision has all the potential to set back women sports by decades, if not make it altogether redundant.

  Speak up now, ladies, or forever forfeit your rightful place on the Olympic podium.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 22:05

• How Many Cups Of Coffee Do Americans Drink Each Day?
  How Many Cups Of Coffee Do Americans Drink Each Day?

  According to the Statista Global Consumer Survey, drinking two to three cups each day is the most common coffee consumption pattern among Americans.

  

  44 percent of U.S. adults said that they drank this many 7 oz. cups per day on average.

  The second most common answer – which will make many coffee lovers shake their heads in disbelief – was one cup or no coffee at all. 26 percent said they fell into that category.

  In fact, as Katharina Buchholz notes in the latest installment of the Statista survey, only 65 percent of Americans listed coffee as a beverage they regularly consumed.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The most popular type of coffee in the U.S. is good old drip coffee, with 63 percent saying they consumed it. 22 percent of Americans said they drank iced coffee, followed by instant coffee (18 percent) in third place. 50 percent of American adults agreed with the statement “coffee is pure pleasure to me”.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 21:45

• How Fiat Money Changes Culture
  How Fiat Money Changes Culture

  Authored by Stephan Livera via The Mises Institute,

  Can the type of money used change the culture of a society?

  

  This might seem like an absurd proposition, but it is supported by the arguments of proponents of the Austrian school of economics. 

  First, let’s contextualize the importance of sound money as opposed to fiat money. Mises notes in The Theory of Money and Credit: “It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments.“

  Fiat money has never arisen through purely voluntary market actions. It has always been coercively imposed via interventions such as legal tender laws, capital gains tax laws, central banking, laws permitting fractional reserve banking, government bailout guarantees, etc. This causes a degeneration in the quality of money used by society. But are there cultural consequences of this?

  To see the cultural consequences, we must first understand the pivotal role money and prices play in coordinating production across society. Entrepreneurs must act under uncertainty to gather the required resources to offer their goods and services. And yet money, their unit of account, for measuring profit and loss, is being manipulated by the government. Money is created as new loans are issued by commercial and retail banks, and the first recipients of that money benefit at the expense of late recipients. 

  Using money with continual inflation encourages short termism and haste. We live more like animals in the wild. Animals in the wild care mostly about their next meal, rather than thinking, planning, and building for the long term as humans can do when we’re at our best.

  Consider the counterfactual world of living under sound money, chosen by the market.

  In this world, how does the state fund large programs? It must openly tax citizens, and for this, politicians pay a high price in lost popularity, and risk losing their next election. Instead of explicit taxation, politicians inside the government will prefer to use more hidden forms of funding for their programs. In order to do this, they must first remove the check of sound money. 

  Going one step further, the creation and enforcement of fiat money enables larger and more centralized government. Large government programs become possible that were not possible or sustainable under a market-chosen, sound money standard. 

  Consider the impact of profligate spending under a market-chosen monetary standard. In the past, this meant that governments spending big and living large were subject to net gold outflows to other countries. 

  While many like to think of government programs and welfare statism as a “safety net” for society, consider that these programs fundamentally drive the wrong behaviors. Where historically, non-government-based mutual-aid societies promoted a culture of self-reliance and thrift, government welfare states promote the opposite, the end result being that government programs remove the safeguards that a market society would have. In this way, fiat money frees people from the prior “restraints” of polite society, with expectations for productive and civil behavior broken. 

  Freed of prior constraints that families, religion, and communities used to impose, people often turn to more short-term gratification. They may engage in more reckless behavior that previously would have had economic consequences, such as the cost of raising children.

  Fiat inflation forces people to invest in just about anything rather than save in fiat cash, driving more money and debt as leverage through the financial services sector than otherwise would be the case. With cheap fiat debt, governments may more cheaply engage in warfare or sustain warfare for longer than they otherwise could have. Cheap fiat debt essentially provides the government with command over more of society’s resources than it otherwise would have had. 

  For readers interested in learning more, I highly recommend reading Jörg Guido Hülsmann’s The Ethics of Money Production, and watching his lecture here on the Mises Institute YouTube channel.

  How could this situation be rectified?

  If the world were to transition back to market-chosen money, such as gold or bitcoin, we would see the discipline of the free market reassert itself. Until then, let’s recognize the ways that society and culture have been greatly influenced by government fiat money. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 21:25

• SEC Slows Robinhood IPO With Detailed Review Of Crypto-Trading Business
  SEC Slows Robinhood IPO With Detailed Review Of Crypto-Trading Business

  It looks like the SEC is creating some problems for Robinhood as the company seeks to side-step the fallout from January’s meme-stock trading frenzy (and its decision to shut down trading in GME, AMC and other meme stocks, supposedly to meet requirements stipulated by its clearing house) on its way to a multibillion-dollar IPO.

  

  Robinhood, which had hoped to go public this month, has seen its plans for a listing stymied by nosey regulators asking detailed questions about the company’s prospectus, specifically its plans regarding the expansion of its cryptocurrency-trading business.

  Over the past month, reports of an intensifying crackdown in China and fears about further ransomware attacks and other use-cases for organized criminal activity have prompted American regulators to reconsider their relatively liberal stance toward crypto.

  Already, the deluge of SPAC deals has created a backlog at the SEC which is taking longer to review prospective deals. Agency staff have warned corporate lawyers that it may take up to 30 days to review paperwork for SPACs, with an additional two weeks tacked on for any changes or amendments.

  For traditional IPOs, the wait could be even longer.

  A listing for Robinhood could still arrive this summer, Bloomberg said. The timeline has already slipped to July.

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been asking Robinhood about its growing cryptocurrency business, one of the people said, asking not to be identified because the matter is private.

  While a listing might come this summer, the popular trading app’s plans could also slip into the fall, one of the people said. The company aims to reveal its financials as soon as possible and to go public as soon as the SEC finishes its review, they said.

  Robinhood first rolled out cryptocurrency trading in 2018, but the service has been plagued by objections from regulators and occasional crashes (not unlike its equity and equity derivatives trading). Crypto prices have been on a wild ride so far this year, with bitcoin recently rebounding above $35K after tumbling below $30K for the first time in…two weeks.

  The firm first filed its S-1 in March, with a target of going public in June, which isn’t going to happen, the company says.

  As the SEC breaks Robinhood’s stones while allowing dozens of shady SPAC deals pass with nary a peep, one can’t help but wonder whether this headline is a weak attempt at CYA for the regulator, which has become notoriously behold to the corporate interests it’s supposed to police (just look at the astounding leniency granted to Elon Musk).

  A few days ago, we reported that the retail trading boom that revolutionized markets last year shows no signs of slowing.

  

  At this point, it seems unlikely that some lowly regulator will come forward and try to stop Vlad Tenev from cementing his multibillionaire status.

  In other news, Robinhood said Thursday that it wants the SEC to allow sub-penny pricing on exchanges. The new rule would help create tighter spreads (marginally, to be sure) for Robinhood’s clients (and the clients of other firms), the company argued, while also helping close a gap between the exchanges and private market-makers. The firm also just rolled out its IPO Access program in the US, which it claims will allow retail traders to get in on new offerings at the listing price.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 21:05

• How Energy Transition Models Go Wrong
  How Energy Transition Models Go Wrong

  Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

  I have written many posts relating to the fact that we live in a finite world. At some point, our ability to extract resources becomes constrained. At the same time, population keeps increasing. The usual outcome when population is too high for resources is “overshoot and collapse.” But this is not a topic that the politicians or central bankers or oligarchs who attend the World Economic Forum dare to talk about.

  Instead, world leaders find a different problem, namely climate change, to emphasize above other problems. Conveniently, climate change seems to have some of the same solutions as “running out of fossil fuels.” So, a person might think that an energy transition designed to try to fix climate change would work equally well to try to fix running out of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this isn’t really the way it works.

  

  In this post, I will lay out some of the issues involved.

  [1] There are many different constraints that new energy sources need to conform to.

  These are a few of the constraints I see:

  • Should be inexpensive to produce

  • Should work with the current portfolio of existing devices

  • Should be available in the quantities required, in the timeframe needed

  • Should not pollute the environment, either when created or at the end of their lifetimes

  • Should not add CO2 to the atmosphere

  • Should not distort ecosystems

  • Should be easily stored, or should be easily ramped up and down to precisely match energy timing needs

  • Cannot overuse fresh water or scarce minerals

  • Cannot require a new infrastructure of its own, unless the huge cost in terms of delayed timing and greater materials use is considered.

  If an energy type is simply a small add-on to the existing system, perhaps a little deviation from the above list can be tolerated, but if there is any intent of scaling up the new energy type, all of these requirements must be met.

  It is really the overall cost of the system that is important. Historically, the use of coal has helped keep the overall cost of the system down. Substitutes need to be developed considering the overall needs and cost of the system.

  The reason why the overall cost of the system is important is because countries with high-cost energy systems will have a difficult time competing in a world market since energy costs are an important part of the cost of producing goods and services. For example, the cost of operating a cruise ship depends, to a significant extent, on the cost of the fuel it uses.

  In theory, energy types that work with different devices (say, electric cars and trucks instead of those operated by internal combustion engines) can be used, but a long delay can be expected before a material shift in overall energy usage occurs. Furthermore, a huge ramp up in the total use of materials for production may be required. The system cannot work if the total cost is too high, or if the materials are not really available, or if the timing is too slow.

  [2] The major thing that makes an economy grow is an ever increasing supply of inexpensive-to-produce energy products.

  Food is an energy product. Let’s think of what happens when agriculture is mechanized, typically using devices that are made and operated using coal and oil. The cost of producing food drops substantially. Instead of spending, for example, 50% of a person’s wages on food, the percentage can gradually drop down to 20% of wages, and then to 10% of wages for food, and eventually even, say, to 2% of wages for food.

  As spending on food falls, opportunity for other spending arises, even with wages remaining relatively level. With lower food expenditures, a person can spend more on books (made with energy products), or personal transportation (such as a vehicle), or entertainment (also made possible by energy products). Strangely enough, in order for an economy to grow, essential items need to become an ever decreasing share of everyone’s budget, so that citizens have sufficient left-over income available for more optional items.

  It is the use of tools, made and operated with inexpensive energy products of the right types, that leverages human labor so that workers can produce more food in a given period of time. This same approach also makes many other goods and services available.

  In general, the less expensive an energy product is, the more helpful it will be to an economy. A country operating with an inexpensive mix of energy products will tend to be more competitive in the world market than one with a high-cost mix of energy products. Oil tends to be expensive; coal tends to be inexpensive. This is a major reason why, in recent years, countries using a lot of coal in their energy mix (such as China and India) have been able to grow their economies much more rapidly than those countries relying heavily on oil in their energy mixes.

  [3] If energy products are becoming more expensive to produce, or their production is not growing very rapidly, there are temporary workarounds that can hide this problem for quite a number of years.

  Back in the 1950s and 1960s, world coal and oil consumption were growing rapidly. Natural gas, hydroelectric and (a little) nuclear were added, as well. Cost of production remained low. For example, the price of oil, converted to today’s dollar value, was less than $20 per barrel.

  Once the idyllic 1950s and 1960s passed, it was necessary to hide the problems associated with the rising cost of production using several approaches:

  • Increasing use of debt – really a promise of future goods and services made with energy

  • Lower interest rates – permits increasing debt to be less of a financial burden

  • Increasing use of technology – to improve efficiency in energy usage

  • Growing use of globalization – to make use of other countries’ cheaper energy mix and lower cost of labor

  After 50+ years, we seem to be reaching limits with respect to all of these techniques:

  • Debt levels are excessive

  • Interest rates are very low, even below zero

  • Increasing use of technology as well as globalization have led to greater and greater wage disparity; many low level jobs have been eliminated completely

  • Globalization has reached its limits; China has reached a situation in which its coal supply is no longer growing

  [4] The issue that most people fail to grasp is the fact that with depletion, the cost of producing energy products tends to rise, but the selling prices of these energy products do not rise enough to keep up with the rising cost of depletion.

  As a result, production of energy products tends to fall because production becomes unprofitable.

  As we get further and further away from the ideal situation (oil less than $20 per barrel and rising in quantity each year), an increasing number of problems crop up:

  • Both oil/gas companies and coal companies become less profitable.

  • With lower energy company profits, governments can collect less taxes from these companies.

  • As old wells and mines deplete, the cost of reinvestment becomes more of a burden. Eventually, new investment is cut back to the point that production begins to fall.

  • With less growth in energy consumption, productivity growth tends to lag. This happens because energy is required to mechanize or computerize processes.

  • Wage disparity tends to grow; workers become increasingly unhappy with their governments.

  [5] Authorities with an incorrect understanding of why and how energy supplies fall have assumed that far more fossil fuels would be available than is actually the case. They have also assumed that relatively high prices for alternatives would be acceptable.

  In 2012, Jorgen Randers prepared a forecast for the next 40 years for The Club of Rome, in the form of a book, 2052, with associated data. Looking at the data, we see that Randers forecast that world coal consumption would grow by 28% between 2010 and 2020. In fact, world coal consumption grew by 0% in that period. (This latter forecast is based on BP coal consumption estimates for 2010 and 2019 from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, adjusted for the 2019 to 2020 period change using IEA’s estimate from its Global Energy Review 2021.)

  It is very easy to assume that high estimates of coal resources in the ground will lead to high quantities of actual coal extracted and burned. The world’s experience between 2010 and 2020 shows that it doesn’t necessarily work out that way in practice. In order for coal consumption to grow, the delivered price of coal needs to stay low enough for customers to be able to afford its use in the end products it provides. Much of the supposed coal that is available is far from population centers. Some of it is even under the North Sea. The extraction and delivery costs become far too high, but this is not taken into account in resource estimates.

  Forecasts of future natural gas availability suffer from the same tendency towards over-estimation. Randers estimated that world gas consumption would grow by 40% between 2010 and 2020, when the actual increase was 22%. Other authorities make similar overestimates of future fuel use, assuming that “of course,” prices will stay high enough to enable extraction. Most energy consumption is well-buried in goods and services we buy, such as the cost of a vehicle or the cost of heating a home. If we cannot afford the vehicle, we don’t buy it; if the cost of heating a family’s home rises too high, thrifty families will turn down the thermostat.

  Oil prices, even with the recent run-up in prices, are under $75 per barrel. I have estimated that for profitable oil production (including adequate funds for high-cost reinvestment and sufficient taxes for governments), oil prices need to be over $120 per barrel. It is the lack of profitability that has caused the recent drop in production. These profitability problems can be expected to lead to more production declines in the future.

  With this low-price problem, fossil fuel estimates used in climate model scenarios are almost certainly overstated. This bias would be expected to lead to overstated estimates of future climate change.

  The misbelief that energy prices will always rise to cover higher costs of production also leads to the belief that relatively high-cost alternatives to fossil fuels would be acceptable.

  [6] Our need for additional energy supplies of the right kinds is extremely high right now. We cannot wait for a long transition. Even 30 years is too long.

  We saw in section [3] that the workarounds for a lack of growing energy supply, such as higher debt and lower interest rates, are reaching limits. Furthermore, prices have been unacceptably low for oil producers for several years. Not too surprisingly, oil production has started to decline:

  

  Figure 1 – World production of crude oil and condensate, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration

  What is really needed is sufficient energy of the right types for the world’s growing population. Thus, it is important to look at energy consumption on a per capita basis. Figure 2 shows energy production per capita for three groupings:

  • Tier 1: Oil and Coal

  • Tier 2: Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydroelectric

  • Tier 3: Other Renewables, including Intermittent Wind and Solar

  

  Figure 2 World per capita energy consumption by Tier. Amounts through 2019 based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. Changes for 2020 based on estimates provided by IEA Global Energy Review 2021.

  Figure 2 shows that the biggest drop is in Tier 1: Coal and Oil. In many ways, coal and oil are foundational types of energy for the economy because they are relatively easy to transport and store. Oil is important because it is used in operating agricultural machinery, road repair machinery, and vehicles of all types, including ships and airplanes. Coal is important partly because of its low cost, helping paychecks to stretch further for finished goods and services. Coal is used in many ways, including electricity production and making steel and concrete. We use coal and oil to keep electricity transmission lines repaired.

  Figure 2 shows that Tier 2 energy consumption per capita was growing rapidly in the 1965 to 1990 period, but its growth has slowed in recent years.

  The Green Energy sources in Tier 3 have been growing rapidly from a low base, but their output is still tiny compared to the overall output that would be required if they were to substitute for energy from both Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. They clearly cannot by themselves power today’s economy.

  It is very difficult to imagine any of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 energy sources being able to grow without substantial assistance from coal and oil. All of today’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 energy sources depend on coal and oil at many points in the chain of their production, distribution, operation, and eventual recycling. If we ever get to Tier 4 energy sources (such as fusion or space solar), I would expect that they too will need oil and/or coal in their production, transport and distribution, unless there is an incredibly long transition, and a huge change in energy infrastructure.

  [7] It is easy for energy researchers to set their sights too low.

  [a] We need to be looking at the extremely low energy cost structure of the 1950s and 1960s as a model, not some far higher cost structure.

  We have been hiding the world’s energy problems for years behind rising debt and falling interest rates. With very high debt levels and very low interest rates, it is becoming less feasible to stimulate the economy using these approaches. We really need very inexpensive energy products. These energy products need to provide a full range of services required by the economy, not simply intermittent electricity.

  Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the ratio of Energy Earned to Energy Investment was likely in the 50:1 range for many energy products. Energy products were very profitable; they could be highly taxed. The alternative energy products we develop today need to have similar characteristics if they truly are to play an important role in the economy.

  [ b] A recent study says that greenhouse gas emissions related to the food system account for one-third of the anthropogenic global warming gas total. A way to grow sufficient food is clearly needed.

  We clearly cannot grow food using intermittent electricity. Farming is not an easily electrified endeavor. If we do not have an alternative, the coal and oil that we are using now in agriculture really needs to continue, even if it requires subsidies.

  [c] Hydroelectric electricity looks like a good energy source, but in practice it has many deficiencies.

  Some of the hydroelectric dams now in place are over 100 years old. This is nearing the lifetime of the concrete in the dams. Considerable maintenance and repair (indirectly using coal and oil) are likely to be needed if these dams are to continue to be used.

  The water available to provide hydroelectric power tends to vary greatly over time. Figure 3 shows California’s hydro electricity generation by month.

  

  Figure 3. California hydroelectric energy production by month, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration.

  Thus, as a practical matter, hydroelectric energy needs to be balanced with fossil fuels to provide energy which can be used to power a factory or heat a home in winter. Battery storage would never be sufficient. There are too many gaps, lasting months at a time.

  If hydroelectric energy is used in a tropical area with dry and wet seasons, the result would be even more extreme. A poor country with a new hydroelectric power plant may find the output of the plant difficult to use. The electricity can only be used for very optional activities, such as bitcoin mining, or charging up small batteries for lights and phones.

  Any new hydroelectric dam runs the risk of taking away the water someone else was depending upon for irrigation or for their own electricity generation. A war could result.

  [d] Current approaches for preventing deforestation mostly seem to be shifting deforestation from high income countries to low income countries. In total, deforestation is getting worse rather than better.

  

  Figure 4. Forest area percentage of land area, by income group, based on data of the World Bank.

  Figure 4 shows that deforestation is getting rapidly worse in Low Income countries with today’s policies. There is also a less pronounced trend toward deforestation in Middle Income countries. It is only in High Income countries that land areas are becoming more forested. In total (not shown), the forested area for the world as a whole falls, year after year.

  Also, even when replanting is done, the new forests do not have the same characteristics as those made by natural ecosystems. They cannot house as many different species as natural ecosystems. They are likely to be less resistant to problems like insect infestations and forest fires. They are not true substitutes for the forest ecosystems that nature creates.

  [e] The way intermittent wind and solar have been added to the electric grid vastly overpays these providers, relative to the value they add to the system. Furthermore, the subsidies for intermittent renewables tend to drive out more stable producers, degrading the overall condition of the grid.

  If wind and solar are to be used, payments for the electricity they provide need to be scaled back to reflect the true value that they add to the overall system. In general, this corresponds to the savings in fossil fuel purchases that electricity providers need to make. This will be a small amount, perhaps 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Even this small amount, in theory, might be reduced to reflect the greater electricity transmission costs associated with these intermittent sources.

  We note that China is making a major step in the direction of reducing subsidies for wind and solar. It has already dramatically cut its subsidies for wind energy; new subsidy cuts for solar energy will become effective August 1, 2021.

  A major concern is the distorting impact that current pricing approaches for wind and solar have on the overall electrical system. Often, these approaches produce very low, or negative, wholesale prices for other providers. Nuclear providers are especially harmed by such practices. Nuclear is, of course, a low CO2 electricity provider.

  It seems to me that in each part of the world, some utility-type provider needs to be analyzing what the overall funding of the electrical system needs to be. Bills to individuals and businesses need to reflect these actual expected costs. This approach might avoid the artificially low rates that the current pricing system often generates. If adequate funding can be achieved, perhaps some of the corner cutting that leads to electrical outages, such as recently encountered in California and Texas, might be avoided.

  [8] When I look at the requirements for a successful energy transition and the obstacles we are up against, it is hard for me to see that any of the current approaches can be successful.

  Unfortunately, it is hard for me to see how intermittent electricity can save the world economy, or even make a dent in our problems. We have searched for a very long time, but haven’t yet found solutions truly worth ramping up. Perhaps a new “Tier 4 approach” might be helpful, but such solutions seem likely to come too late.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 20:45

• Canadian Housing Market "Gone Berserk" As Investors Stir Bubble Fears  
  Canadian Housing Market “Gone Berserk” As Investors Stir Bubble Fears  

  Housing market activity in Canada has become a speculative bubble that is further detached from fundamentals than ever before. Investors are piling into the market, building portfolios of homes as the Central Bank of Canada (BOC) keeps interest rates pinned to the floor since the beginning of the pandemic. 

  Brady McDonald, a real investor with more than 100 homes, told Bloomberg that his “net worth has obviously gone up a lot, just based on what’s happened this year, because the market’s gone berserk.” 

  McDonald began acquiring single-family homes in a small town called Barrie, located in Ontario, in 2015. Now his net worth is “in the millions” as the country’s real estate market is overheating. 

  Bloomberg data has ranked Canada as one of the bubbliest housing markets on the planet. 

  

  “We have a housing crisis here,” the investor said, where prices are up 40% in just the last year. “The demand for housing is not going down. So there’s always opportunity.”

  Investors have been on a buying spree, owning approximately a fifth of new mortgages in Canada. The same rate prompted a crackdown in the UK.

  

  Academics have begun the debate that investors have driven housing prices into bubble territory, making affordability to new homeowners impossible. 

  “The moment we want houses to be good investments is the moment we want prices to grow faster than local economies and local earnings,” said Paul Kershaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia and founder of Generation Squeeze, a group that supports issues important to young people, including cheap housing. “That’s a recipe for unaffordability.”

  The unaffordability issue has disrupted Canadians who have been told in life that owning a home is the best way to become financially sound. Many believe that a single-family detached house is the best place to start a family. 

  One of the most common problems is that investors are outbidding first-time homebuyers. This is because investors have cheap access to capital and are willing to pay well over the list price.

  The BOC told Bloomberg in an emailed statement that “determining the precise level at which investor activity should be a cause for concern is difficult and requires further study.” 

  Perhaps that level is now as runaway home price growth is observed in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Montreal. 

  A very similar story is playing out in the US, where institutional investors have purchased homes by the thousands. 

  Even smaller investors complain about large institutions dabbling in real estate markets who say, “it’s hard to compete” with companies who are “prepared to pay ridiculous money over asking.” 

  What ultimately needs to happen to control this speculative mania is that the BOC should transition into a tightening cycle next year. Rate increases from the zero lower bound will give the central bank more firepower to fight the next downturn. Canadians have borrowed heavily to speculate in the housing market. The next rate hike cycle could pop the bubble. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 20:25

• Von Greyerz: The Icarus Wax Of The Everything Bubble Is Melting
  Von Greyerz: The Icarus Wax Of The Everything Bubble Is Melting

  Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,

  When will the wax melt that holds up the global economy? Hubris is driving humans and markets ever higher and closer to the sun. The higher everything goes, the greater the risk that the wax melts and the wings that are supporting the global economy just fall off and everything crashes to the ground.

  Investing successfully is primarily about managing risk rather than maximising profits. As we reach the end of the biggest bull market in history, investors feel so secure that risk has become an irrelevance.

  

  HOCUS POCUS SYSTEM – THE SAVIOUR OF STOCKS

  The Hocus Pocus system of finance has offered total downside protection for investors for 1/2 a century. The last big crash that affected a whole generation was the 1929 crash. After a 90% fall in the Dow, it took 1/4 of a century to recover to the 1929 high.

  But since Nixon caused the Hocus Pocus system to thrive from 1971, all major crashes have quickly retraced to new highs. The Dow has fallen 40-60% in 1973, 1987, 2000, 2008 and 2020. But instead of taking 25 years to recover like after the 1929 crash, no retracement since 1971 has taken more than 2 years.

  This is the beauty of Hocus Pocus finance. Through printing and credit expansion you create unlimited access to liquidity for the big investors. Virtually no funds reach ordinary people who need it but instead the Hocus Focus system rewards the Croesus investors which means the haves get more and the have nots become relatively much poorer.

  As the graphs below show, the bottom 50% hold 0.6% of corporate equities and Mutual Funds whilst the top 1% hold over 52%.

  

  Income inequality is also expanding with the top 10% of earners getting just below 50% of income. As the graph shows, Europe is more egalitarian.

  

  REVOLUTION, WIPEOUT OR BOTH

  The inequality of wealth and income can correct itself in two distinct ways.

  Either a revolution like in France in the late 1700s or Russia in the early 1900s. This would lead to a general fall in economic activity and redistribution of wealth in a new Marxist system. Asset markets would crash leading to everyone being worse off until Marxism is rejected by the people. In Russia that process took around 70 years last time.

  The other way is a collapse of asset markets leading to a massive wipeout of the wealth of the rich. The poor would also be worse off due to the general deterioration in the economy.

  THE WAX OF THE EVERYTHING BUBBLE IS MELTING

  So coming back to when the wax holding the world economy precariously together actually melts, let’s return to the Greek mythology.

  Daedalus and his son Icarus were imprisoned by King Minos in the Labyrinth that Daedalus had built. The only way out was to fly and Daedalus came up with the idea to make bird wings that were attached to their bodies with wax. They managed to flee from the labyrinth using their wings. Icarus had been warned by his father not to fly too close to the sun as the wax would melt and he would crash. But carelessness and hubris couldn’t stop Icarus from reaching ever higher until the wax melted and he crashed to his death.

  As the Everything Bubble is flying closer to the sun, the risk of the wax melting is growing exponentially.

  The wax holding it all together needs a number of ingredients, to stick such as:

  • Confidence – even if false,

  • Hubris

  • Propaganda

  • Fake promises,

  • Zero or negative interest rates

  • Fake news

  • Manipulation

  • Corrupt financial system

  • Debasement of money and purchasing power

  • Fiscal deficits

  • Ever increasing debt & credit

  •  Unlimited money printing

  Take away one or two of these ingredients and the wax will start melting and the whole global economy crash to the ground.

  But who really cares about the wax that holds the world economy together. I and a few others have written about the problems we see and the risks we perceive. Also we discuss the consequences that will affect most people.

  But whilst some of us believe that our message is of vital importance to everyone, we are sadly only reaching a minuscule minority of people.  As the  income and wealth graphs show above, even in the Western world, most people have no assets to protect and an income that barely covers their daily outgoings.

  HOCUS POCUS SYSTEM CANNOT STOP MELTING OF WAX

  As I often stress normal people without major savings can still buy gold and silver for wealth preservation. With 1 gram of gold costing $60 and an ounce of silver $30 virtually everyone can put some savings into precious metals. If the Venezuelans had done that 20 years ago with very small money, that would have saved them from total destitution.

  I sometimes hear from people who are poor investors and even worse traders. These are people who are victims and never take responsibility for their own actions.

  Even worse, they buy at the top and sell at the bottom. And then they are experts in the most exact of all sciences, namely HINDSIGHT!

  “I should have bought Bitcoin at $10 or $100 instead of buying gold in 2011”.

  Sadly these are people who will never make money consistently on anything since they can’t take responsibility for their own actions.

  Also, they don’t comprehend that the primary purpose of holding gold or silver is to protect your wealth against the wax melting i.e. the massive risks of the everything bubble crashing to the ground

  Precious metals principal role is wealth preservation or insurance against a rotten financial system and a constant debasement of currencies until they reach ZERO as the table below shows.

  

  GOLD AND SILVER UPTREND IN TACT

  Technically, the precious metals are going through a minor correction which probably will not last much longer. The next move will be to $1,950 for gold on the way to $3,000 initially. Silver is likely to soon reach $30 on the way to $50 and beyond.

  These prices are probable medium term targets on the way to much higher levels as the currency system collapses.

  Holding gold and silver is imperative to protect against the next currency debasement which will be ruinous.

  Long term, gold looks extremely strong technically as the chart in this article shows. But I must stress again that investors should not focus on price but on long term insurance and wealth protection.

  INSTITUTIONAL GOLD DEMAND WILL DRIVE THE GOLD PRICE

  Another factor which will drive the gold price is institutional gold investing for primarily inflation protection purposes. The latest pension fund to buy physical gold and store it in private vaults outside the banking system is CPEV for the canton of Vaud. They have switched out of hedge funds and into $600 million of physical gold.

  Swiss institutions understand the importance of holding gold in physical form  outside the banking system rather than holding futures or gold ETFs.

  I have explained the dangers of holding gold ETFs in this article from last year.

  We are also advising clients not to hold gold in any bank, not even a Swiss Bank.

  GOLD OFFERS INSTANT LIQUIDITY

  What institutions appreciate with physical gold is that it represents instant liquidity.

  Over $180 billion of gold (mostly paper gold) is traded every day. Gold can be bought and sold around the clock at the quoted spot price plus a small margin for physical delivery.

  

  SWITZERLAND – A STRATEGIC GOLD HUB

  Switzerland is the primary gold hub of the world. Over 70% of all the gold bars in the world are refined in Switzerland. Gold is 29% 0f Swiss exports and thus strategically important.

  It is critical that investors have direct access to their own gold bars in the vault without passing through an intermediary as this would represent an undesirable counterparty risk.

  Also, any intermediary organising the purchase and storage of the gold should be a Swiss company. Holding gold in Switzerland organised by for example a US or UK company adds a layer of jurisdictional risk.

  All gold held in Swiss private vaults are subject to Swiss regulatory control and compliance. Gold which does not comply with the fiscal laws of the beneficial holder is not accepted by any vault.

  Swiss private gold vaults have no reporting requirements to any country. This protects the confidentiality of the holder.

  WORLD’S BIGGEST PRIVATE GOLD VAULT IN SWISS ALPS

  The vault in the video below is a Swiss owned private vault in the Swiss Alps. It is the biggest private gold vault in the world and the safest.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 20:05

• Natgas Futures Hit 29-Month High Amid Heat Wave
  Natgas Futures Hit 29-Month High Amid Heat Wave

  Natural gas futures climbed higher Thursday on track for a 29-month high as warmer weather and a rise in exports continue to drive demand. 

  Front-month gas futures NGc1 rose 9.9 cents, or 2.97%, to $3.432 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) by late afternoon Thursday, its highest level since January 2019. 

  

  The U.S. Energy Information Administration released its report on the state of the natgas inventories and said utilities added 55 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas into storage last week. This is a much lower figure than the 66-bcf build analysts forecasted on Reuters polls. The primary reason for the low storage build among utilities is that power generators burned a tremendous amount of gas to keep Americans air conditioners on as a heat wave and megadrought transformed the western half of the U.S. into a furnace. 

  Last week, U.S. liquefied natural gas exports fell 9.9 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) primarily due to short-term maintenance outages at Gulf Coast ports. However, exports have been soaring in the last couple of months, with averages of 10.8 bcfd in May and a record 11.5 bcfd in April. 

  Data provider Refinitiv projected gas demand, including exports would increase from 88.2 bcfd this week to 93.1 bcfd next week

  Turning to our note on Jan. 13, titled “Goldman Flips On NatGas, Warns Of Bullish “Perfect Storm,”” it seems as Goldman Sachs’ Samantha Dart was right about “significant upside to NYMEX gas prices this summer” as prices hit 29-month highs. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 19:45

• The Forgotten History Of Banking (And What Happens Next)
  The Forgotten History Of Banking (And What Happens Next)

  Authored by Tuomas Malinen via GnSEconomics.com,

  Banking is at the heart of modern economic systems. The history of banking is also very long. The first banks appeared around 2,500 years ago, according to the latest historical research.

  As we have explained previously, banks generate most of the new money in circulation. They have also enabled major economic and societal upheavals, including the Industrial Revolution. Now, banks are central to the approaching change, or ‘battle’, within our economic systems.

  In this second blog of our financial history series, we go through the development of banking from that of early money exchangers to the rise of the ‘shadow banking’ sector, and we explain how the modern banking system operates.

  

  Photo by Brock Wegner on Unsplash

  The origins

  As we explained in the previous blog, banking practices developed in Ancient Greece, more precisely in the harbor city of Piraeus, where the local bankers, or trapezitai, took deposits and provided loans at the end of the fifth century BCE.

  Still, the first known banks that truly resembled modern banks operated in Imperial Rome. The argentarii, who appear in the Roman history in mid-fourth century BCE, took deposits, advanced money to clients, lent to bidders at auction and transferred money via bills of exchange. Due to the sophistication of this banking system, it is no surprise that Rome also experienced the first banking crises. More on this later.

  Simple merchant banks, usually in the service of the rulers, appeared to Europe in the 14th century. They were concentrated in financing the production of and trade in commodities. While the Chinese had invented bookkeeping, it only appeared at the center of western development and civilization through Italian banks and the scholastic work of Lucca Pacioli in 1494.  The first modern banks and payment systems arose from merchant fairs where commodity trades were settled.

  At the merchant fairs of Lyons, in the mid-1500s, merchants realized that the trustworthiness of well-known international merchants made it possible to pass their promissory notes (a promise to reimburse at a later date) to lesser-known local merchants to create a credit system, where bilateral promises between local and international merchants were paid out as liquid liabilities. These could then easily be assigned from creditor to creditor and, in essence, create money and credit.

  There, basically, the fractional reserve banking system was born.

  Fractional reserve banking

  In a fractional banking system only a small portion—or “fraction”—of the liabilities, like deposits, and assets, like loans, are covered by the reserves or the capital of a bank.

  A bank is an exceptional entity in the sense that while, for example, the output of a tractor company is tractors, the output of a bank is debt. This debt is given out as an IOU or, more precisely, as a bank deposit. Basically, the bank promises that whatever sum you may deposit there, you can get it back whenever you want; a contractual warranty of a sort.  

  The problem in fractional reserve banking system is that only a fractional share of this bank debt is covered at any point in time. So, a banking crisis will develop when the holders of bank debt—also known as “depositors”—demand to convert their claims to cash or other liquid forms of assets in excess of the reserves of the bank. In addition to deposits, this bank debt can be bonds, derivatives or interbank funding obtained from interbank markets.

  Reserves and central banks

  Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914, banks in the U.S. established reserves by themselves through clearinghouses. Because banks wanted to earn interest on their reserves, they lent reserves to other banks. Reserves were re-lent and re-lent between banks until they eventually were lent out to earn enough to cover the interest promised on the reserves. These became known as “fictitious reserves”.  The Banking Act of 1933 prohibited interest payments on all demand deposits in the U.S.

  The inputs used to create bank debt include the capital of the bank, assets, and the regulatory environment, which dictates, for instance, what “reserve ratio” banks must meet.  Due to technological and financial innovations, the proportion of bank capital required as a factor for determining bank debt levels has declined, basically, ever since the creation of modern banks. So, the capital banks are required to hold against liabilities has declined similarly throughout the development of modern banking.

  As banking officials often consider strong capital levels as a source of stability, boosting the trustworthiness of a bank, it has been regulated since the 1980s. However, because banking crises are essentially about capital flight—either in physical or digital form—against bank liabilities, they cannot be stopped by high capital or reserve requirements.  This is something history shows very clearly.

  ‘Shadow banking’

  Since the birth of banking, banks have been at the forefront of risk distribution through diversification and hedging. In the U.S., banks started to sell mortgage-backed debt obligations to investors in the 1960s.  The idea was to distribute risk outside the balance sheet of banks, which would make more funds available for lending. This is essentially the point, when ‘shadow banking’ was born.

  In the 1990s, diversification and hedging took a big leap forward when the credit default swap, CDS, was developed. In it, the risk of a loan is offset by a third party to which the bank—or, more generally, the issuer of a loan—pays a fee for the insurance.

  This new system of risk distribution through diversification and hedging was elevated to a new level after the derivatives team at J.P. Morgan invented a sort of shell-company, or SPV (“Special Purpose Vehicle”), to carry certain bank loans off the bank’s balance sheet. An SPV bundled risky loans and sold them on to investors according to calculated risk tranches, which investors then received interest income based on the riskiness of each tranche in their possession. The construct was called Bistro (“Broad index secured trust offering”).

  Further innovations included the synthetic collateralized debt obligation, or CDO. It was standardized, a more general version of the Bistro, and it could be constructed from not just CDS and other derivatives, but also from different debt securities, such as mortgages.

  The shadow banking sector can be said to consist of all financial entities that provide loans, but are not regulated under the standard banking regulatory framework.

  These include investment banks, SPVs, structured investment vehicles (SIVs), hedge funds, conduits and money market funds.

  The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 was caused by the cascading failures of ‘shadow banks’.

  Banks and liberty

  So, banks and banking have been around since the early days of human civilization.  

  Athenian banks decoupled finance from other enterprises making it easier to support distant maritime trade. Egypt set up state banks as early as the third century BCE, under Macedonian rule.  The Roman Empire developed the principles of modern banking, which were finalized in Europe in the Middle-Ages.

  Central banks, fairly new creations, started to dominate the banking system in the 1920s. Since then, their grip on the banking and financial systems has intensified. Through the issuance of central bank digital currencies, CBDCs, they could rise to rule the whole banking system and thus the economy. Alas, CBDCs are likely to become the single biggest threat to banking industry since its inception.

  Those who champion centralized control over the economy naturally applaud the idea of CBDCs. They may even see the banking industry as “evil” and welcome the “relief” brought by such centralized control. However, they also should acknowledge that modern commercial banks, and their ancestors, have been crucial in building our current standards of living. They should also remember the historical lessons, the horrors and the poverty of centrally-controlled economic systems, such as under communism.

  Thus, everyone should also ask themselves what the world would look like if a government entity, like a central bank, dictates who gets funding for what project? This is the road we are heading down with the issuance of CBDCs—and we fear the answer.

  Historical accounts are based on: William Goetzmann: Money Changes Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible; Gary B. Gorton: Misunderstanding Financial Crises: Why We Don’t See Them Coming; and Felix Martin: Money: The Unauthorized Biography. Gillian Tett: Fool’s Gold.

  *  *  *

  We provide in-depth analysis and forecasts on the risks haunting the global economy and the financial markets in our Q-Review reports and Deprcon Service. They are are available at our Store. See our Crisis Preparation -reports for guidelines how to prepare for the coming financial crash.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 19:25

• State Of Emergency Declared After Miami Condo Building Collapse; 99 Still Missing
  State Of Emergency Declared After Miami Condo Building Collapse; 99 Still Missing

  Update (1910ET): Search and rescue teams comb through tons of rubble of a collapsed condo building in Surfside, Florida, according to the NYTimes. 

  Video shows Miami-Dade firefighters working dangerous search-and-rescue effort in basement parking garage at the Surfside building collapse – https://t.co/UHdI0zbNhO pic.twitter.com/uQAuaZJcnQ

  — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The hunt for survivors has been ongoing for more than 12 hours since the Champlain Towers, a 12-story condo building, collapsed in the early morning hours. 

  “This process is slow and methodical,” Ray Jadallah, a Miami-Dade Fire Rescue assistant fire chief, said Thursday afternoon. “Anytime we started breaching parts of the structure, we get rubble falling on us.”

  Mayor Daniella Levine Cava of Miami-Dade County said officials accounted for 102 people who lived in the building, but 99 people remained missing. 

  

  So far, at least one person was killed in the collapse. Officials warned there could be more fatalities. 

  “Fire and rescue are in there with their search team, with their dogs. It’s a very dangerous site right now. Very unstable,” Miami-Dade Police Director Freddy Ramirez told reporters. “They’re in search-and-rescue mode, and they will be in that mode for a while. They are not quitting. They’re going to work through the night. They are not stopping.”

  Ramirez said the number of casualties and people missing is still not entirely known at the moment. 

  “I don’t want to set false expectations,” he said. “This is a very tragic situation for those families and for the community.”

  The Champlain Towers South had 130 units, approximately 80 of which were occupied. The building, which was constructed in 1981, was in the process of being recertified, with several repairs being done. Every forty years, a recertification process for condo buildings in the area is performed to see if it satisfies structural standards. 

  

  When news broke of the collapse, Shimon Wdowinski, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Florida International University, remembered a study he completed on the condo building in the 1990s. He found the tower was sinking 2 millimeters a year in the 1990s. 

  “I looked at it this morning and said, ‘Oh my god.’ We did detect that,” he said.

  Wdowinski said his research is more than two decades old, and the sinking may have decreased or accelerated. 

  By late Thursday evening, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declared a state emergency declaration after the building collapse. 

  

  Earlier, DeSantis said, “brace for some bad news.” 

  Meanwhile, former President Trump has released a statement:

  My thoughts and prayers are with all of those impacted by the building collapse in Surfside, Florida. Thank you to the incredible First Responders and Law Enforcement for arriving so quickly on the job, as always. We wish Governor Ron DeSantis, and all of those representing the Great State of Florida concerning this tragic event, Good Luck and God Speed. I am with you all the way!

  With a third or more of the condo building completely pancaked, search and rescue teams will work through the night. 

  * * * 

  Update (1448ET): NBC6 Miami’s Ari Odzer said, “Director of @MiamiDadePD says 53 people have been accounted for, 99 are missing.” 

  Director of @MiamiDadePD says 53 people have been accounted for, 99 are missing. @nbc6 #SurfsideBuildingCollapse pic.twitter.com/ZDDkCN8mS7

  — Ari Odzer (@ariodzernbc6) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  * * * 

  Update (1424ET): Reporters on the ground of the collapsed condo building in Surfside say a fire has broken out. 

  Small fire ignites at site of partial building collapse. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue already on scene to douse hotspots… although the fire is temporarily slowing down search & rescue efforts. @WPLGLocal10 pic.twitter.com/DhGtjcyFM3

  — Terrell Forney (@TerrellWPLG) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  #BREAKING: Firefighters are trying to put out fire at site of partial building collapse in #Surfside. @nbc6 pic.twitter.com/WNqR49Hgbb

  — Ryan Nelson (@RyanNelsonTV) June 24, 2021

  NOW – Fire Breaks Out At The Surfside Building That Collapsed In Floridapic.twitter.com/xqzKRUpgxH

  — Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  * * * 

  Update (1321ET): Even after the partial collapse of Champlain Towers, where dozens of people are unaccounted for, some condo listings remain available. 

  US housing market vs. reality#Miami pic.twitter.com/L7bs1y7xmm

  — Brandon Adamson 🍋 (@brandonadamson) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “This was built way back in 1981. Wonder what the shelf-life will be for all the recent “new urbanist” high rise constructions will be, with their cheap, flimsy materials and quirky designs,” Twitter account “Brandon Adamson” said. 

  

  On another note, we wonder if condo listings around the collapsed building will flood the market? 

  * * * 

  Update (1035ET): Bad news is beginning to trickle out from this morning’s condo building collapse in Surfside. Earlier, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said, “brace for some bad news.” 

  Now Miami-Dade County Commissioner Sally Heyman told CNN that at least 50 people are unaccounted for in the building collapse. 

  

  Axios reports 51 people are unaccounted for. Still, the numbers remain loose. 

  * * * 

  Update (1010ET):  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has told the press to “brace for some bad news” following the condo building collapse in Surfside early Thursday morning. 

  

  * * * 

  Update (0950ET): Absolutely stunning video of the condo collapse in Surfside, Florida, has been posted on Twitter via “Andy Slater.” 

  JUST IN: Video I’ve obtained of the building collapse in Surfside, Florida. pic.twitter.com/BGbRC7iSI9

  — Andy Slater (@AndySlater) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Here’s a GIF of the video, just in case the post is taken down. 

  

  * * * 

  Update (0810ET): Mayor of Surfside, Florida, the location of the condo collapse, spoke with CBS News, he said: 

  “We’re all just scratching our heads trying to imagine what in the world could have happened… It looks like an earthquake.”

  “We’re all just scratching our heads trying to imagine what in the world could have happened… It looks like an earthquake.” — Mayor of Surfside, Florida on partial building collapse near Miami Beach pic.twitter.com/w74AUpQIX1

  — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Twitter user “John Cardillo,” says he spoke with “one of the first responders at the building collapse on Miami Beach/Surfside and initial working theory is a sinkhole.”

  

  Cardillo added: “Having lived down here 17 years I’ve heard more than a few architects and engineers express concern about this exact thing.”

  

  * * * 

  Update (0714ET): An update on the beachfront condo tower collapse in the Miami-area town of Surfside via AP News says there is no word on “casualties or details of how many people lived in the building.”

  Authorities have said, “the entire backside of the building has collapsed.” 

  

  * * * 

  A shocking report from Miami, Florida, early Thursday, of a condo building collapse, where at least nine people were taken to various local hospitals, according to CBS Miami. 

  

  Miami-Dade Rescue Fire tweeted that an 80 unit condo building in a 12-story tower in the town of Surfside, part of Champlain Towers, experienced a “partial collapse.” 

  Due to the partial building collapse near 88 Street & Collins, southbound traffic is being diverted west on 96 Street. Northbound traffic is being diverted at 85 & Collins Avenue.

  — Miami-Dade Fire Rescue (@MiamiDadeFire) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Reasons for the building’s collapse are not yet known. 

  

  Here’s a skycam footage of the collapse. 

  Skycam footage captures partial collapse of a multi-story condominium building in #Miami, FL around 2 a.m. It is unknown how many were in the building at the time of collapse. Still an active seen. pic.twitter.com/y92CqlQrhj

  — Brennan Prill (@WxBrenn) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Scenes on the ground are stunning. 

  

  Update on #Miami: A building partly collapses near Miami, #Florida
  🔺There is an enormous emergency response near Miami Beach.
  🔺The collapse happened near 88th St & Collins Ave
  🔺We haven’t heard of reports of injuries or fatalities at this time
  pic.twitter.com/Mad3E15Z3u

  — The Modern Times of Long Beach 🌎 (@ModernTimesLB) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Update on #Miami:
  The building was the Champlain Towers South
  🔺The building was 13 floors and had 136 unitspic.twitter.com/eqIhui889k

  — The Modern Times of Long Beach 🌎 (@ModernTimesLB) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “They are able to rescue some people….but I heard some screams.” Off camera this resident of Champlain Towers tells me, “I lost a lot of friends- part of Bldg is pancaked.” @MiamiDadeFire sent *80* units to #miamibuildingcollapse in what is shaping up to be horrific @NBCNews pic.twitter.com/AMyq1Fc5Gc

  — Sam Brock (@SamBrockNBC) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  BREAKING: Multi-level building collapse reported in Surfside, Florida. Multiple emergency agency’s responding. #miami

  pic.twitter.com/xDlVUeTfle

  — Izzy (@YWNReporter) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Here’s the video from within the building. 

  @AgendaFreeTV I am a resident of one of the condos on the side of the collapse. This is a video from my camera footage inside from the start of the collapse until the lose of connection (I was away from the building today). Towards the end, you hear the structure failing pic.twitter.com/UzBJQogUxp

  — rosie✨ (@_rosiesantana) June 24, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  … and this all plays into aging private and public buildings and infrastructure across the country are in need of serious repair. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 19:08

• Gun Sanctuary Movement Erupts, 61% of US Counties Now Protect Second Amendment
  Gun Sanctuary Movement Erupts, 61% of US Counties Now Protect Second Amendment

  One of the most important stories of the year, so far, is the massive surge in Second Amendment sanctuaries at the state, county, and local levels, entirely ignored by liberal media. 

  More than 61% of American Counties are Now Second Amendment Sanctuaries https://t.co/vm5gkNmBqg

  — Sanctuary Counties (@SanctuaryCounty) June 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  According to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com, “1,930 counties that are protected by Second Amendment Sanctuary legislation at either the state or county level… this represents 61.39% of all of the counties in the United States of America.” 

  

  The mainstream media seems to be ignoring the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement because they’re only focused on Biden’s administration war on the National Rifle Association and the eventual banning or at least limitations of certain types of weapons. 

  As the movement grows and more and more counties become Second Amendment sanctuaries, President Biden’s war on guns might have hit a roadblock. 

  Days ago, we reported all 29 sheriffs in Utah have “pledged to do everything within their power to steadfastly protect the Second Amendment and all other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.” 

  White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in April that Biden might issue executive orders concerning gun control. 

  If Biden moves forward with his gun control dreams, people who are gun owners on both sides of the political aisle will be frustrated with the administration at a time when the country is descending into socio-economic chaos.  

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• How Powerful Is Your Passport In A Post-Pandemic World?
  How Powerful Is Your Passport In A Post-Pandemic World?

  With COVID-19 cases falling in many parts of the world and vaccination programs ramping up at warp speed, international travel no longer seems like a distant dream.

  The Henley Passport Index, which has been regularly monitoring the world’s most travel-friendly passports since 2006, has released its latest rankings and analysis.

  Visual Capitalist’s Anshool Deshmukh details below that the most recent data provides insight into what travel freedom will look like in a post-pandemic world as countries selectively begin to open their borders to international visitors.

  

  Prominent Countries Still Holding Strong

  The rankings are based on the visa-free score of a particular country. A visa-free score refers to the number of countries that a passport holder can visit without a visa, with a visa on arrival, or by obtaining an electronic travel authorization (ETA).

  Without considering the constantly changing COVID-19 restrictions, Japan firmly holds its position as the country with the strongest passport for the 4th year in a row.

  This positioning is based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA)—with Japanese passport holders theoretically able to access a record 193 destinations from around the world visa-free.

  The last time Japan didn’t hold the number one position was back in 2017, when it shared the 5th spot with countries like the United States, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

  

  Singapore remains in 2nd place, with a visa-free score of 192, while Germany and South Korea again share joint-3rd place, each with access to 191 destinations.

  Throughout the 16-year history of the Henley Index, EU countries have maintained a dominant position in the passport strength reports. Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain all hold the 4th position while Austria and Denmark round up the top 5 with a visa-free score of 189.

  

  The United States and the United Kingdom jointly share the 7th position with a visa-free score of 187 destinations. Canada, Mexico and Brazil hold the 9th, 23rd and 17th positions respectively, with Brazil experiencing a significant jump of eight places over the last 10 years.

  Editor’s note: Visit the Henley Passport Index site for a full list and ranking of all countries around the world.

  The Countries With The Least Travel Freedom

  Afghanistan continues to be the country with the least amount of travel freedom, coming in last place (110th rank) with a visa-free score of 26 destinations. Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen have access to slightly more visa-free travel, but still linger at the bottom of the overall ranking.

  

  The latest report indicates that the gap in travel freedom is now at its largest since the index began in 2006. Japanese passport holders can access 167 more destinations than citizens of Afghanistan, who can visit only 26.

  The Biggest Gainers In a Decade

  Over time, small annual moves in the Henley Passport Index can make a big impact—and in the last decade, countries like China and the UAE have been the biggest movers:

  

  China has risen by 22 places in the ranking since 2011 by going from a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 40 destinations to now 77.

  The most remarkable turnaround story on the index by far, however, is the UAE. In 2011, the UAE was ranked 65th with a visa-free score of 67 destinations. Today, thanks to the Emirates’ ongoing efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with countries across the globe, it is now ranked 15th with a remarkable visa-free score of 174 destinations.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 02:45

• England Set To Drop Face Mask Rules After Huge Economic Impact Revealed
  England Set To Drop Face Mask Rules After Huge Economic Impact Revealed

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  England is set to drop all face mask rules on July 19th after it was revealed that keeping such restrictions in place is costing the economy billions and will force many businesses to close.

  

  “The requirement to wear facemasks on public transport and in shops will be replaced with guidance advising people to wear masks in certain circumstances, rather than compelling them,” reports the Times.

  The decision follows the findings of an internal economic impact assessment produced by the government’s Events Research Programme which detailed the massive impact social distancing measures are having on businesses.

  Politico Playbook reveals that, “keeping any measures would cost the economy billions and see many businesses close.”

  Specifically, indoor seated venues such as the arts, cinemas and business events would achieve just 59 per cent of their 2019 turnover if restrictions remain, costing them a whopping £4.88 billion over the next year.

  Even if the only remaining restriction kept in place is face masks, “The entire events industry would reach just 82 percent of its 2019 turnover. Indoor seated venues would get just 72 percent. Indoor non-seated just 65 percent. Outdoor non-seated venues would manage just 82 percent of their 2019 figure.”

  The events industry as a whole is bringing in only 60 per cent of normal revenue under the current restrictions, which will likely continue until July 19th.

  However, with some government advisers (namely a former Communist) pushing for restrictions to continue literally forever, don’t be surprised to see some of them reintroduced in the winter.

  But with vaccine passports for pubs still being considered, any return of restrictions will likely only impact those who haven’t taken a vaccine.

  This will then create a two tier society where those who for whatever reason haven’t had the jab will face discrimination and de facto lockdown for years to come.

  *  *  *

  Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

  In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 02:00

• One Nation Under Greed: The Profit Incentives Driving The American Police State
  One Nation Under Greed: The Profit Incentives Driving The American Police State

  Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” 

  – Frédéric Bastiat, French economist

  If there is an absolute maxim by which the American government seems to operate, it is that the taxpayer always gets ripped off.

  

  Not only are Americans forced to “spend more on state, municipal, and federal taxes than the annual financial burdens of food, clothing, and housing combined,” but we’re also being played as easy marks by hustlers bearing the imprimatur of the government.

  With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.

  Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.

  The overt and costly signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government are all around us: warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private phone and email conversations by the FBI, NSA, etc.; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling.

  Meanwhile, the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and the agencies under their command—Defense, Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, etc.—have switched their allegiance to the Corporate State with its unassailable pursuit of profit at all costs and by any means possible.

  By the time you factor in the financial blowback from the COVID-19 pandemic with its politicized mandates, lockdowns, and payouts, it becomes quickly apparent that we are now ruled by a government consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.

  As with most things, if you want to know the real motives behind any government program, follow the money trail.

  When you dig down far enough, you quickly find that those who profit from Americans being surveilled, fined, scanned, searched, probed, tasered, arrested and imprisoned are none other than the police who arrest them, the courts which try them, the prisons which incarcerate them, and the corporations, which manufacture the weapons, equipment and prisons used by the American police state.

  Examples of this legalized, profits-over-people, government-sanctioned extortion abound.

  On the roads: Not satisfied with merely padding their budgets by issuing speeding tickets, police departments have turned to asset forfeiture and red light camera schemes as a means of growing their profits. Despite revelations of corruption, collusion and fraud, these money-making scams have been being inflicted on unsuspecting drivers by revenue-hungry municipalities. Now legislators are hoping to get in on the profit sharing by imposing a vehicle miles-traveled tax, which would charge drivers for each mile behind the wheel.

  In the prisons: States now have quotas to meet for how many Americans go to jail. Increasing numbers of states have contracted to keep their prisons at 90% to 100% capacity. This profit-driven form of mass punishment has, in turn, given rise to a $70 billion private prison industry that relies on the complicity of state governments to keep the money flowing and their privately run prisons full, “regardless of whether crime was rising or falling.” As Mother Jones reports, “private prison companies have supported and helped write … laws that drive up prison populations. Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and keeping them there.” Private prisons are also doling out harsher punishments for infractions by inmates in order to keep them locked up longer in order to “boost profits” at taxpayer expense. All the while, prisoners are being forced to provide cheap labor for private corporations. No wonder the United States has the largest prison population in the world.

  In the schools: The security industrial complex with its tracking, spying, and identification devices has set its sights on the schools as “a vast, rich market”—a $20 billion market, no less—just waiting to be conquered. In fact, the public schools have become a microcosm of the total surveillance state which currently dominates America, adopting a host of surveillance technologies, including video cameras, finger and palm scanners, iris scanners, as well as RFID and GPS tracking devices, to keep constant watch over their student bodies. Likewise, the military industrial complex with its military weapons, metal detectors, and weapons of compliance such as tasers has succeeded in transforming the schools—at great taxpayer expense and personal profit—into quasi-prisons. Rounding things out are school truancy laws, which come disguised as well-meaning attempts to resolve attendance issues in the schools but in truth are nothing less than stealth maneuvers aimed at enriching school districts and court systems alike through excessive fines and jail sentences for “unauthorized” absences. Curiously, none of these efforts seem to have succeeded in making the schools any safer.

  In the endless wars abroad: Fueled by the profit-driven military industrial complex, the government’s endless wars are wreaking havoc on our communities, our budget and our police forces. Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour. Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.  Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford. War spending is bankrupting America.

  In the form of militarized police: The Department of Homeland Security routinely hands out six-figure grants to enable local municipalities to purchase military-style vehicles, as well as a veritable war chest of weaponry, ranging from tactical vests, bomb-disarming robots, assault weapons and combat uniforms. This rise in military equipment purchases funded by the DHS has, according to analysts Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz, “paralleled an apparent increase in local SWAT teams.” The end result? An explosive growth in the use of SWAT teams for otherwise routine police matters, an increased tendency on the part of police to shoot first and ask questions later, and an overall mindset within police forces that they are at war—and the citizenry are the enemy combatants. Over 80,000 SWAT team raids are conducted on American homes and businesses each year. Moreover, government-funded military-style training drills continue to take place in cities across the country.

  In profit-driven schemes such as asset forfeiture: Under the guise of fighting the war on drugs, government agents (usually the police) have been given broad leeway to seize billions of dollars’ worth of private property (money, cars, TVs, etc.) they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity. Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. The police are actually being trained in seminars on how to seize the “goodies” that are on police departments’ wish lists. According to the New York Times, seized monies have been used by police to “pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car.”

  Among government contractors: We have been saddled with a government that is outsourcing much of its work to high-paid contractors at great expense to the taxpayer and with no competition, little transparency and dubious savings. According to the Washington Post, “By some estimates, there are twice as many people doing government work under contract than there are government workers.” These open-ended contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, “now account for anywhere between one quarter and one half of all federal service contracting.” Moreover, any attempt to reform the system is “bitterly opposed by federal employee unions, who take it as their mission to prevent good employees from being rewarded and bad employees from being fired.”

  By the security industrial complex: We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors. In the so-called name of “precrime,” this government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing. This far-reaching surveillance, carried out with the complicity of the Corporate State, has paved the way for an omnipresent, militarized fourth branch of government—the Surveillance State—that came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum. That doesn’t even touch on the government’s bold forays into biometric surveillance as a means of identifying and tracking the American people from birth to death.

  By a government addicted to power: It’s a given that you can always count on the government to take advantage of a crisis, legitimate or manufactured. Emboldened by the citizenry’s inattention and willingness to tolerate its abuses, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands. Now that the government has gotten a taste for flexing its police state powers by way of a bevy of COVID-19 lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., “we the people” may well find ourselves burdened with a Nanny State inclined to use its draconian pandemic powers to protect us from ourselves.

  These injustices, petty tyrannies and overt acts of hostility are being carried out in the name of the national good—against the interests of individuals, society and ultimately our freedoms—by an elite class of government officials working in partnership with megacorporations that are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.

  This perverse mixture of government authoritarianism and corporate profits has increased the reach of the state into our private lives while also adding a profit motive into the mix. And, as always, it’s we the people, we the taxpayers, we the gullible voters who keep getting taken for a ride by politicians eager to promise us the world on a plate.

  This is a far cry from how a representative government is supposed to operate.

  Indeed, it has been a long time since we could claim to be the masters of our own lives. Rather, we are now the subjects of a militarized, corporate empire in which the vast majority of the citizenry work their hands to the bone for the benefit of a privileged few

  Adding injury to the ongoing insult of having our tax dollars misused and our so-called representatives bought and paid for by the moneyed elite, the government then turns around and uses the money we earn with our blood, sweat and tears to target, imprison and entrap us, in the form of militarized police, surveillance cameras, private prisons, license plate readers, drones, and cell phone tracking technology.

  All of those nefarious deeds by government officials that you hear about every day: those are your tax dollars at work.

  It’s your money that allows for government agents to spy on your emails, your phone calls, your text messages, and your movements. It’s your money that allows out-of-control police officers to burst into innocent people’s homes, or probe and strip search motorists on the side of the road. And it’s your money that leads to Americans across the country being prosecuted for innocuous activities such as growing vegetable gardens in their front yards or daring to speak their truth to their elected officials.

  Just remember the next time you see a news story that makes your blood boil, whether it’s a police officer arresting someone for filming them in public, or a child being kicked out of school for attending a virtual class while playing with a toy gun, remember that it is your tax dollars that are paying for these injustices.

  There was a time in our history when our forebears said “enough is enough” and stopped paying their taxes to what they considered an illegitimate government. They stood their ground and refused to support a system that was slowly choking out any attempts at self-governance, and which refused to be held accountable for its crimes against the people.

  Their resistance sowed the seeds for the revolution that would follow.

  Unfortunately, in the 200-plus years since we established our own government, we’ve let bankers, turncoats and number-crunching bureaucrats muddy the waters and pilfer the accounts to such an extent that we’re back where we started.

  Once again, we’ve got a despotic regime with an imperial ruler doing as they please.

  Once again, we’ve got a judicial system insisting we have no rights under a government which demands that the people march in lockstep with its dictates.

  And once again, we’ve got to decide whether we’ll keep marching or break stride and make a turn toward freedom.

  But what if we didn’t just pull out our pocketbooks and pony up to the federal government’s outrageous demands for more money?

  What if we didn’t just dutifully line up to drop our hard-earned dollars into the collection bucket, no questions asked about how it will be spent?

  What if, instead of quietly sending in our checks, hoping vainly for some meager return, we did a little calculating of our own and started deducting from our taxes those programs that we refuse to support?

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if the government and its emissaries can just take from you what they want, when they want, and then use it however they want, you can’t claim to be anything more than a serf in a land they think of as theirs.

  This is not freedom, America.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/24/2021 – 00:00

• Visualizing The World's Population By Age Group
  Visualizing The World’s Population By Age Group

  An aging population can have far-reaching consequences on a country’s economy.

  With this in mind, Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang looks at the age composition of the global population in 2020 in the infographic below, based on the latest figures from the United Nations.

  

  The Global Age Composition

  Our global population is getting older, largely because of increasing life expectancies and declining birth rates.

  In 2020, more than 147 million people around the world were between the ages of 80-99, accounting for 1.9% of the global population.

  

  While that percentage may seem small, that particular demographic accounted for merely 0.05% of the population in 1950, meaning our world has a notably higher percentage of older people than it did 70 years ago.

  Why is this significant? An aging population typically means a declining workforce and an increase of people looking to cash in their pensions. This can put pressure on the working class if taxes are raised.

  Of course, an aging population can have positive impacts on society as well. For instance, elderly citizens tend to volunteer more than other age groups. And research has shown that older communities have lower crime rates. By 2050, the crime rate in Australia expected to drop by 16% as the country’s population gets older.

  To mitigate some of the risks associated with a rapidly aging population, certain countries are working towards more sustainable pension systems, to support aging citizens while taking the stress off the working population.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 23:40

• New Law Requires Florida Students To Be Taught About "The Evils Of Communism"
  New Law Requires Florida Students To Be Taught About “The Evils Of Communism”

  By Mimi Nguyen Ly of Epoch Times,

  High school students in Florida will be required to learn about “the evils of communism” under one of three bills Gov. Ron DeSantis signed on Tuesday.

  

  DeSantis signed the bills at a news conference at Three Oaks Middle School in Fort Myers. Two of the bills—HB 5 and SB 1108—focus on civics education, and the third—HB 233—requires freedom of expression at state colleges and universities. Specifically, HB 5 requires the Florida Department of Education to develop an integrated K-12 civic education curriculum that includes teaching students about citizens’ shared rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  The measure also adds a requirement for public high schools to “include a comparative discussion of political ideologies, such as communism and totalitarianism, that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States.”

  In short, high schools must provide “instruction on the evils of communism and totalitarian ideology,” DeSantis said, noting that there are Florida residents who have escaped totalitarian regimes and communist dictatorships, such as from Cuba and Vietnam, to live in America.

  “We want all students to understand the difference,” he said.

  “Why would somebody flee across shark-infested waters … why would people leave these countries and risk their lives to be able to come here? It’s important that students understand that.”

  HB 5 will also provide a “Portraits in Patriotism” library with resources that include personal stories of “real patriots who came to this country after seeing the horrors of these communist regimes,” DeSantis said.

  The Republican governor also signed SB 1108, which requires state college and university students to undergo both a civic literacy course and a civic literacy assessment in order to graduate. Prior to this bill, students were only required to do one—either the course or the assessment.

  High school students will also be required to take a civic literacy assessment. If they pass the test, they will be exempted from taking a civics test in college or university.

  The bill also expands a “character development curriculum” for high school juniors and seniors to include instructions on how to register to vote.

  

  In a statement, DeSantis said he was proud to sign the bills to prioritize civics education.

  “The sad reality is that only two in five Americans can correctly name the three branches of government, and more than a third of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” he said.

  “It is abundantly clear that we need to do a much better job of educating our students in civics to prepare them for the rest of their lives.”

  The third bill DeSantis signed, HB 233, seeks to protect “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity” in postsecondary education.

  It requires state colleges and universities to carry out annual assessments on intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity at these institutions. The bill defines “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity” as “the exposure of students to, and the encouragement of students’ exploration of, a variety of ideological and political perspectives.”

  The new law will also prohibit postsecondary schools from limiting students and staff members from accessing or observing “ideas and opinions that they may find uncomfortable, unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.”

  “We obviously want our universities to be focused on critical thinking, academic rigor,” DeSantis told the press conference.

  “We do not want them as basically hotbeds for stale ideology—that’s not worth tax dollars, and that’s not something we’re going to be supporting going forward.”

  He noted, “It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you’d be exposed to these sorts of ideas. Unfortunately, now the norm is really these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed. We don’t want that in Florida. You need to have a true contest of ideas.”

  “Students should not be shielded from ideas, and we want robust First Amendment speech on our college and university campuses.”

  The trio of bills are the latest efforts by DeSantis’s administration focused on education in Florida.

  In 2019, DeSantis signed an executive order that involved completely eliminating Common Core in Florida, a set of education standards for reading, writing, and maths in the majority of states since 2010.

  The same order directed Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran to develop recommendations for the state legislature, including ideas to improve testing, and to “identify ways to really make civics education a priority in Florida,” DeSantis said back in 2019.

  More recently, the Floridian governor supported the Florida Board of Education’s decision to ban the teaching of critical race theory in public schools.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 23:20

• Is HAARP Firing Up? FAA Issues Warning About "Electromagnetic Radiation"
  Is HAARP Firing Up? FAA Issues Warning About “Electromagnetic Radiation”

  A longstanding topic of great speculation among curious minds is HAARP, a controversial Alaska-based research facility that studies the outermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere: the ionosphere. 

  HAARP (short for High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) has been at the center of wild speculation that its high-power radio frequency transmitter facility can control the weather. Though those claims have yet to be confirmed, conspiracy theorists say otherwise. 

  

  HAARP has fallen out of the news cycle in recent years for inactivity, but there’s reason to believe that it’s being fired back up for “scientific research.” 

  A notice to airmen (known as a NOTAM) was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration on June 17 with the beginning date of June 21 through June 25.

  

  The NOTAM places “temporary flight restrictions” around Gulkana, Alaska, where the HAARP facility is located. It reads that planes are restricted from flying in the Gulkana airspace due to “electromagnetic radiation for scientific research.”

  FDC 1/6022 ZAN AK..AIRSPACE GULKANA, AK..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WI AN AREA DEFINED AS 2.5NM RADIUS OF 622333N1450902W (GKN007016.6) SFC-FL250 FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137 (A)(1) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. TRANSIT THRU THE AIRSPACE MAY BE AUTH BY HAARP COMMAND CENTER, TEL 907-822-5497 OR FREQ 123.3. ANCHORAGE /ZAN/ ARTCC TEL 907-269-1103 IS THE FAA CDN FACILITY. DLY 0400-1730 2106210400-2106251730.

  If concerned citizens are correct and HAARP can, in fact, control weather or even weaponize weather – what could the government be up to? 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 23:00

• Bovard: The Deep State Defeat Of Donald Trump
  Bovard: The Deep State Defeat Of Donald Trump

  Authored by James Bovard via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

  “The Trump–Deep State clash is a showdown between a presidency that is far too powerful versus federal agencies that have become fiefdoms with immunity for almost any and all abuses,” I wrote in an FFF article a year ago.

  Since then, Donald Trump lost the 2020 election by fewer than 50,000 votes in a handful of swing states that determined the Electoral College result.  There were numerous issues that could drive that relatively small number of votes. But machinations by the Deep State probably cost Trump far more votes than it took to seal his loss.

  “The Deep State” commonly refers to officials who secretly wield power permanently in Washington, often in federal agencies with vast sway and little accountability. During Trump’s first impeachment, the establishment media exalted the Deep State. New York Times columnist James Stewart assured readers that the secretive agencies “work for the American people,” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle hailed the Deep State as “a collection of patriotic public servants,” and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson captured the Beltway’s verdict:

  “God bless the Deep State!”

  

  The first three years of Trump’s presidency were haunted by constant accusations that he had colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election. The FBI launched its investigation on the basis of ludicrous allegations from a dossier financed by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. FBI officials deceived the FISA Court to authorize surveilling the Trump campaign. A FISA warrant is the nuclear bomb of searches, authorizing the FBI “to conduct simultaneous telephone, microphone, cell phone, e-mail and computer surveillance of the U.S. person target’s home, workplace and vehicles,” as well as “physical searches of the target’s residence, office, vehicles, computer, safe deposit box and U.S. mails,” as a FISA court decision noted. The FISA court is extremely deferential, approving 99 percent of all search warrant requests.

  Leaks from federal officials spurred media hysteria that put Trump on the defensive even before he took his oath of office in January 2017. A 2018 Inspector General (IG) report revealed that one FBI agent labeled Trump supporters as “retarded” and declared, “I’m with her” (Clinton). Another FBI employee texted that “Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer texted that he was “devastated” by Trump’s election and declared, “Viva la Resistance!” and “I never really liked the Republic anyway.” The same person became the “primary FBI attorney assigned to [the Russian election-interference] investigation beginning in early 2017,” the IG noted.

  FBI chief James Comey leaked official memos to friendly reporters, thereby spurring the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump. A 2019 Inspector General report noted that top FBI officials told the IG that they were “shocked,” “stunned,” and “surprised’ that Comey would leak the contents of one of the memos to a reporter. The IG concluded, “The unauthorized disclosure of this information — information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director — violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy.” The IG concluded that by using sensitive information “to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.” The IG report warned that “the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI’s investigative authorities depend on FBI’s ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure.”

  But the only penalty that Comey suffered was to collect multimillion-dollar advances for his book deals.

  

  The Steele dossier

  In December 2019, another Inspector General report confirmed that the FBI made “fundamental errors” to justify surveilling the Trump campaign. The FBI refrained from launching a FISA warrant request until it came into possession of a dossier from Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent. The Steele dossier played “a central and essential role in the decision by FBI [Office of General Counsel] to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page, as well as the FBI’s ultimate decision to seek the FISA order,” the IG report concluded. The FBI “drew almost entirely” from the Steele dossier to prove a “well-developed conspiracy” between Russians and the Trump campaign. The IG found that FBI agents were “unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page” in the Steele dossier but the FBI relied on Steele’s allegations regardless.

  The FBI withheld from the FISA court key details that obliterated the dossier’s credibility, including a warning from a top Justice Department official that “Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” The CIA disdained the Steele dossier as “an internet rumor,” one FBI official told IG investigators.

  Many if not most of the damning details involving Russiagate have still not been disclosed. But the occasional disclosures are doing nothing to burnish the credibility of the key players. On January 12, 2017, Comey attested to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that the Steele dossier used to hound the Trump campaign had been “verified.” But on the same day, he emailed the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, “We are not able to sufficiently corroborate the reporting.” That email was revealed this past February, thanks to a multi-year fight for disclosure by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

  If the FBI’s deceit and political biases had been exposed in real time, there would have been far less national outrage when Trump fired Comey. Instead, that firing was quickly followed by the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the Russian charges. In April 2019, Mueller admitted there was no evidence of collusion. Conniving by FBI officials and the veil of secrecy that hid their abuses had roiled national politics for years.

  Not one FBI official has spent a single day in jail for the abuses. In January, former FBI assistant general counsel Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced after he admitted falsifying key evidence used to secure the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. A federal prosecutor declared that the “resulting harm is immeasurable” from Clinesmith’s action. But a federal judge believed that a wrist slap was sufficient punishment — 400 hours of community service and 12 months of probation.

  The Deep State defeated Trump in part because the president appointed agency chiefs who were more devoted to secrecy than to truth. Bureaucratic barricades were reinforced by judges who repeatedly defied common sense to perpetuate iron curtains around federal agencies.

  

  Syria

  Trump’s failure to extract the United States from the Syrian civil war was one of his biggest foreign policy pratfalls. Each time he sought to exit that quagmire, the Washington establishment and Deep State agencies pushed back.

  When Trump tried to end CIA assistance to Syrian terrorist groups in July 2017, a Washington Post article portrayed his reversal in apocalyptic terms. Trump responded with an angry tweet: “The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad.” That disclosure spurred a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the New York Times for CIA records on payments to Syrian rebel groups. The CIA denied the request and the case ended up in court.

  CIA officer Antoinette Shiner warned the court that forcing the CIA to admit that it possessed any records of aiding Syrian rebels would “confirm the existence and the focus of sensitive Agency activity that is by definition kept hidden to protect U.S. government policy objectives.” Of course, “kept hidden” doesn’t apply to the CIA when it was engaged in “not for attribution” bragging to reporters. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius proudly cited an estimate from a “knowledgeable official” that “CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years.”

  Federal judges, unlike Syrian civilians slaughtered by U.S.-funded terrorist groups, had the luxury of pretending the program didn’t exist. In a decision last July, the federal appeals court of the Second Circuit stressed that affidavits from CIA officials are “accorded a presumption of good faith” and stressed “the appropriate deference owed” to the CIA. The judges omitted quoting former CIA chief Mike Pompeo’s description of his agency’s modus operandi: “We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s like we had entire training courses.”

  Since Trump’s tweet did not specifically state that the program he was seeking to terminate actually existed, the judges entitled the CIA to pretend it was still top secret. The judges concluded with another kowtow, stressing that they were “mindful of the requisite deference courts traditionally owe to the executive in the area of classification.” Judge Robert Katzmann dissented, declaring that the court’s decision put its “imprimatur to a fiction of deniability that no reasonable person would regard as plausible.”

  On February 9, another federal appeals court shot down a FOIA request from BuzzFeed journalist Jason Leopold who had sought the same records on the basis of Trump’s tweet. But the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia unanimously blocked Leopold’s request: “Did President Trump’s tweet officially acknowledge the existence of a program? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. And therein lies a problem.” The judges proffered no evidence that Trump had tweeted about a program that didn’t exist. The judges reached into an “Alice in Wonderland” bag of legal tricks and plucked out this pretext: “Even if the President’s tweet revealed some program, it did not reveal the existence of Agency records about that alleged program.” Since Trump failed to specify the exact room number where the records were located at CIA headquarters, the judges entitled the CIA to pretend the records didn’t exist.

  Only a federal judge could shovel that kind of hokum. Well, also members of Congress and editorial writers, but that’s a story for another month.

  *  *  *

  In his final months in office, Trump repeatedly promised massive declassification which never came.

  Was the president stymied by persons he had unwisely appointed, such as CIA chief Gina Haspel and FBI chief Christopher Wray? Or was that simply another series of empty Twitter eruptions that Trump failed to follow up? Instead, his legacy is another grim reminder of how government secrecy can determine political history.

  Have Deep State federal agencies become a Godzilla with the prerogative to undermine elections? Unfortunately, there’s no chance that federal judges would permit disclosure of the answer to that question.

  Former CIA and NSA boss Michael Hayden proudly proclaimed,

  ““Espionage is not just compatible with democracy; it’s essential for democracy.”

  And how can we know if the Deep State’s espionage is actually pro-democracy or subversive of democracy? Again, don’t expect judges to permit any truths to escape on that score.

  Secrecy is the ultimate entitlement program for the Deep State. The federal government is creating trillions of pages of new secrets every year. The more documents bureaucrats classify, the more lies politicians and government officials can tell. Federal judge Amy Berman Jackson warned in 2019, “If people don’t have the facts, democracy doesn’t work.”

  Actually, it is working very well for the FBI, CIA, and other Deep State agencies.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 22:40

• "It's Gotten So Bad" – Violence In Baltimore City Outpaces 2020 Numbers, Gov. Hogan Reacts
  “It’s Gotten So Bad” – Violence In Baltimore City Outpaces 2020 Numbers, Gov. Hogan Reacts

  Baltimore City continues to slide into a socio-economic disaster under liberal control. The latest murders and non-fatal shootings outpace 2020 numbers, according to new crime statistics. 

  Crime and statistics data from the Baltimore City Police Department (BCPD) show the current 160 homicides is 6% above last year’s figures for this time last year. Non-fatal shootings are up 18% year-to-date.

  A Southwest Baltimore resident who wanted to remain anonymous for fear of retribution by local crime gangs told local news WJZ13 that “it’s just gotten so bad. You got to be scared to walk up and down the street, especially in the evening. Now, it’s broad daylight, too.” 

  “[Police] make their presence well-known, so it’s not like they are not here. I see police officers on every corner just about every night,” the person continued. 

  The situation in the city is so severe that Governor Larry Hogan had a recent meeting with newly elected Mayor Brandon Scott and Police Commissioner Michael Harrison. The governor said the meeting was “productive” but attributed the lack of consequences for petty crime to the surge in violence. 

  “When crime’s being committed right in front of police officers, when the state’s attorney refuses to prosecute half the crimes, we’re not going to fix the problem, regardless of how many meetings we’re going to have,” Hogan said.

  This all comes as Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby halted prosecuting minor traffic violations, prostitution, drug possession, and other minor offenses during the virus pandemic. In March, she held a press conference to declare that rough policing doesn’t prevent more violent crimes. 

  But months later, as summer begins, Mosby’s grand experiment is failing as Baltimore’s spending board approved more police funding. 

  If the pace of homicides continues, the metro area will experience more than 300 homicides by the end of the year. Shooting deaths have been elevated since the police killing of Freddie Gray in 2015. 

  

  The spillover in violent crime has reached the city’s most affluent areas, including Fells Point, located in the Inner Harbor district. 

  Readers may recall, earlier this month, 37 businesses in Fells threatened the mayor with not paying their taxes because they’re “fed up and frustrated” with the outburst of violence. 

  This is Fells Point, run by @Zeke_Cohen. The same Ezekiel that quote tweeted me weeks ago saying his district was in great shape. Go to his Facebook page, you will find his constituents cursing him out in the comment section. This will be Zeke’s last term. pic.twitter.com/UwIlwIpCMJ

  — Kimberly Klacik (@kimKBaltimore) June 8, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Video of last night’s shooting in Fells Point, the second weekend in a row, this time with heightened police preened by demand of local businesses pic.twitter.com/s4t5esHck1

  — Justin Fenton (@justin_fenton) June 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Just a clip of me standing up for Baltimore City residents against terrible leaders that have ruined such a beautiful city on Fox & Friends 🇺🇸

  I will be visiting Fells Point this evening for dinner. It’s up to us. pic.twitter.com/xLP071CY5m

  — Kimberly Klacik (@kimKBaltimore) June 15, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As we’ve noted, BCPD has stepped up patrols, closed-off streets, and set up a mobile crime command center in the bar and restaurant district to get a handle on the crime overflow. 

  One of the 37 concerned business owners is Bill Packo, who owns Barley’s Backyard and has been operating in Fells for three decades. He spoke with WJZ13 about the out of control violence and public drunkenness:

  “It’s a shame. What they’re letting happen to Fells Point is what they let happen in the Inner Harbor, and now it has made its way here,” Packo said. “There’s alcohol being sold by individuals out there, drugs, and clearly we all know about the shootings that took place last weekend. But there needs to be some control out there. There is none whatsoever.”

  If violent crime continues to spiral out of control in the city, affecting local commerce, businesses will start moving out to suburbia where life is pleasant and calm. 

  Former President Trump actively spoke about Baltimore. Why is the Biden administration choosing to ignore?  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 22:20

• Buzzfeed Nears Deal To Finally Go Public Via SPAC
  Buzzfeed Nears Deal To Finally Go Public Via SPAC

  After years of speculation about a public offering, Buzzfeed, the digital media company that revealed recently that much of its most popular content is produced by unpaid teenagers, is nearing a deal to go public via SPAC.

  The deal, reported Wednesday evening by WSJ, will give the company enough of a bankroll to buy up other rival media firms, including Complex, a fashion- and media-based outlet. Buzzfeed hopes that it will come out on top in a wave of consolidation that will see it buy up several of its main rivals.

  The SPAC deal is being struck by Buzzfeed CEO and founder Jonah Peretti and the company 890 5th Avenue Partners, a blank-check company named after the headquarters of Marvel’s Avengers superheroes and founded by investor Adam Rothstein, and it may be officially announced as early as this week.

  

  Buzzfeed and a handful of digital media upstarts managed to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital via a series of funding rounds back in 2015 and 2016. Buzzfeed achieved a peak valuation of $1.5 billion after receiving $200MM from NBCUniversal. But by now, that money has probably mostly run out.

  In the intervening years, investors have been forced to write down the value of some of these investments (like Disney writing down the entirety of its investment in Vice) as the media firms have mostly underperformed. Some, like Vox, have achieved modest success via scale by buying up rival brands left and right. But Buzzfeed’s attempts at consolidation haven’t worked out so well: the firm recently laid off a huge chunk of the HuffPo staffers who migrated to Buzzfeed following the deal.

  Financial pressure has intensified for Buzzfeed, forcing it to trawl around for potential suitors. But even in the SPAC boom, which has slowed since the start of the new year, it appears many are approaching digital media with great trepidation.

  

  In 2017, BuzzFeed missed its revenue target of about $350MM by some 15% to 20% and laid off about 100 employees in advertising sales and business operations. The company’s finances improved over the years as Peretti managed to keep expenses down. In 2020, BuzzFeed turned a profit for the first time since 2014, in part by cutting about $30MM in expenses.

  Buzzfeed isn’t the only digital media player pursuing a SPAC. Whether this will be enough to win over investors remains to be seen. The biggest obstacle for Buzzfeed is that the digital advertising business is controlled by Google, Facebook and Amazon – the “Big three” – and independent media businesses have found it difficult to compete without selling paid subscriptions to subsidize their operations. Will Buzzfeed, a pioneer of the ‘free-to-all’ digital model, finally be forced to experiment with a paywall? And more importantly, would anybody actually pay?

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 22:00

• Ant Group Forced To Spearhead China's New National Credit-Scoring System
  Ant Group Forced To Spearhead China’s New National Credit-Scoring System

  Beijing has apparently figured out a way for Alibaba’s Ant Group to help compensate for founder Jack Ma’s public criticisms: the firm is being forced to partner with a bevy of state-controlled enterprises to develop China’s first credit-scoring system (apparently, Beijing prioritized the rollout of its “social credit” system over the more traditional version).

  For decades now, Chinese financial institutions have been pining for a national system of credit scoring like the FICO system used in the US, despite the fact that Chinese consumers almost exclusively rely on mobile and electronic payments.

  

  According to WSJ, the new entity, which could be established as soon as Q3 of this year, could result in Ant ceding some control over the voluminous data it has on the financial habits of Chinese citizens. More than one billion Chinese use Ant’s Alipay app to spend, borrow or invest their money. All this data collected by Ant is the company’s secret weapon. But instead of Ant hoarding the data for itself, talks are ongoing in which the Jack Ma-controlled Ant will is launching a joint venture with a state-owned company. The resulting firm would be licensed as a credit-scoring company.

  Discussions about how these credit scores would fit into China’s national database of consumer information have continued.

  The new venture with state-backed investors would override Ant’s previous attempts to spearhead a national credit-scoring system under its own brand, Zhima Credit. Ant started the brand six years ago, and once had ambitious plans of using Zhima to provide credit scores for Chinese citizens – but those hopes were dashed, and the division was instead relegated to being a loyalty program for Alipay customers.

  While the PBOC already runs a Credit Reference Center that collects credit information about individuals and companies from banks and other financial institutions, it lacks data on many consumers who either don’t qualify for traditional bank loans or are “unbanked” for whatever reason. Fortunately, Ant, whose Alipay platform handled the equivalent of more than $17 trillion worth of transactions and originated loans to more than one-third of China’s population in the year to June 2020, has collected troves of consumer data for years.

  Back in 2016, Alibaba was investing heavily in Zhima to try and make the division China’s premier credit-scoring database. The firm had been invited by the PBOC (along with a handful of rival firms) to try and create its own credit bureau. Ant hired people from Equifax to build the risk assessment and scoring system.

  The company expected the PBOC to grant it a license to run the credit-scoring system after it had finished building out the system connecting lenders across the country to pool data on potential borrowers. But that never happened.

  Instead, regulators cracked down on peer-to-peer lending platforms after some turned out to lack proper risk controls, or be outright scams. The PBOC also decided it no longer wanted a nationwide credit-scoring system run. The PBOC later tried to revive the credit scoring system, but found private firms to be less-than-willing partners.

  With its ambitions curtailed, Zhima soon began to fade. Ant instead used the “Zhima scores” as the basis for a loyalty program for Alipay users. People with high scores could enjoy perks such as deposit-free hotel bookings and rentals of cars, bicycles and mobile power banks.

  While Zhima likely won’t be a part of the new state-controlled credit-scoring system, WSJ said the state-controlled enterprises that are partnering with Ant to create the new system will likely benefit from all Zhima’s data.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 21:40

• Baltimore Police Chief Links Recent Crime Wave To Staff Shortages, Gang Violence
  Baltimore Police Chief Links Recent Crime Wave To Staff Shortages, Gang Violence

  Authored by Lorenz Duchamps via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison blamed a rise in violent crime and homicides in the most populous city in Maryland on “a number of issues,” including a shortage in staff.

  

  Harrison noted during an interview with CNN on Tuesday that just like New York and all the other big cities across the nation, Baltimore is seeing a spike in violence, with 18 homicides recorded in just the past ten days alone.

  “It’s a number of issues, it’s grouping gang violence, it’s retaliation from previous bad acts,” the commissioner explained.

  “But we are seeing an increase in close acquaintance shootings and domestic violence shootings where people just have absolutely poor or no conflict resolution skills and are using guns to solve their conflicts.”

  

  Harrison also noted that he hopes the police force in the city, which is seeing roughly 230 officers short of its current budget, will see more “boots on the ground” to fight the crime spike and homicides.

  “We are hiring, we are recruiting,” Harrison said. “We are using every resource available, we’re using all the time to force up and plus up the number, so we can have more officers.”

  While stressing the departments’ dire need for more officers, the chief also said additional personnel is not just good for improving law enforcement in the city, but also needed to “build those relationships” within the community, noting that the department needs the community’s help in solving these murders so these bad actors can be held accountable for “terrorizing our community.”

  The comments came as President Joe Biden plans to lay out new steps to stem a rising national tide of violent crime, with a particular focus on shootings, as administration officials brace for what they fear could be an especially turbulent summer.

  

  In a speech on Wednesday, Biden is to unveil a series of executive orders aimed at reducing violence, and he will renew his calls for Congress to pass gun legislation, aides said. Ahead of the speech, the Justice Department announced new strike forces aimed at tackling gun trafficking in five cities.

  “Yes, there need to be reforms of police systems across the country. The president is a firm believer in that,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.

  “But there are also steps he can take as president of the United States to help address and hopefully reduce that crime. A big part of that, in his view, is putting in place gun safety measures … using the bully pulpit but also using levers at his disposal as president.”

  The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  From NTD News

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 21:20

• Is The Worst Finally Over: Automotive Chip Supply Expected To Ramp Up In Second Half Of 2021
  Is The Worst Finally Over: Automotive Chip Supply Expected To Ramp Up In Second Half Of 2021

  It looks like the ongoing semiconductor pain for the auto industry could finally be on the track to subsiding.

  That’s because car chip vendors are now able to “ramp up output” thanks to more foundry house support coming online, Digitimes Asia reported overnight. 

  The report notes that some international automotive IC vendors have “notified their clients that they can expect more supplies in second-half 2021” as foundries expand production capacity. 

  For example, the report notes that “Globalfoundries has just broken ground for a 12-inch fab construction project in Singapore”. 

  Additionally, industry sources in Taiwan told Digitimes that delivery lead times are set to be shortened substantially from the over 50 weeks they were previously at.

  It’s the first sliver of good news for the automotive industry since the semi shortage began as a result of the pandemic. Up until this report, projections for “returns to normal” looked pessimistic and gloomy not only from the automotive industry, but also from consumer electronics companies.

  Recall, just two weeks ago, we noted that Flex, the world’s third-biggest electronics contract manufacturer, offered up the “gloomiest” forecast for the crisis yet. The company has more than 100 sites in 30 countries and works with major names like Dyson and HP. 

  Lynn Torrel, Flex’s chief procurement and supply chain officer, told FT: “With such strong demand, the expectation is mid to late-2022 depending on the commodity. Some are expecting [shortages to continue] into 2023.”

  

  Revathi Advaithi, chief executive of Flex added that the shortage has prompted the company’s multinational customers to “take a far more serious look at restructuring their supply chains than the trade war between the US and China ever did”.

  Adavaithi commented: “Most companies won’t make a decision to regionalize just on tariffs. They know it could be a short-term thing but things like the pandemic and escalation of shipping costs that impact the total cost of ownership drives regionalization.”

  Flex’s pessimistic forecast follows that of Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger weeks ago, who we pointed out said that the shortage could last “a couple years”. 

  We noted in mid-May that Taiwan Semiconductor had plans of “doubling down” and vastly increasing its investment for production in Arizona. The chipmaking giant said at the time it was “weighing plans to pump tens of billions of dollars more into cutting-edge chip factories in the U.S. state of Arizona than it had previously disclosed”.

  The company had already said it was going to invest $10 billion to $12 billion in Arizona. It now appears to be mulling a more advanced 3 nanometer plant that could cost between $23 billion and $25 billion. The changes would come over the next 10 to 15 years, as the company builds out its Phoenix campus.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 21:00

• WHO Official Says Mask Mandates & Social Distancing Should Continue Indefinitely
  WHO Official Says Mask Mandates & Social Distancing Should Continue Indefinitely

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  A top WHO official says that mask mandates and social distancing should continue indefinitely in order to protect against new variants of COVID-19.

  

  The comments were made on Sky News by Special Envoy on Covid for the World Health Organisation (WHO). Dr David Nabarro.

  Nabarro suggested that there would be a long list of mutations of the Indian variant which would in some cases evade the protection offered by vaccines.

  “We will go from Delta to Lambda and then on to the other Greek letters, that’s inevitable, and some of these variants will be troublesome,” he said.

  “That issue of variants is what we are watching all over the world.”

  WHO Special Envoy, Dr David Nabarro says variants of the virus will keep on coming and some “will be troublesome” for vaccine protection.#KayBurley
  Get live #COVID19 updates: https://t.co/vnD7sLx2qm pic.twitter.com/saVLQmrGDM

  — Sky News (@SkyNews) June 23, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “I’m basically saying variants are going to go on coming. That’s part of life, we need to pick them up fast, we need to move quickly if we see them in a certain location, we need to build the management of variants into what we call our Covid-ready strategy, which is going to be the pattern for the foreseeable future,” he added.

  According to Nabarro, mask mandates and social distancing need to remain in place for the foreseeable future “as part of our defence” against COVID, particularly in regions which have high infection rates.

  As we highlighted earlier, England is set to drop all face mask rules on July 19 after it was revealed that they were having a massive negative impact on businesses and wiping billions off the economy.

  Several government advisers have called for coronavirus restrictions to continue forever, not just to defend against COVID, but also to fight influenza.

  Former Communist Party member and SAGE adviser Susan Michie said earlier this month that mask mandates and social distancing should continue “forever” and that people should adopt such behaviour just as they did with wearing seatbelts.

  It never ends.

  *  *  *

  Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

  In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 20:40

• Insurers, Owners Of Stuck Container Ship Reach Deal With Suez Canal Authority
  Insurers, Owners Of Stuck Container Ship Reach Deal With Suez Canal Authority

  The Ever Given container ship could soon be released from Egyptian authority’s control after nearly three months following the vessel’s accident in the Suez Canal in March that closed the world’s most important shipping lane for six days. The Suez Canal Authority (S.C.A.) and the vessel’s owners have been bickering over settlement figures for canal disruptions. However, it appears an “agreement in principle” between the vessel’s owners and the S.C.A. has finally been reached.

  

  On Wednesday, the container ship’s insurers released a statement confirming “an agreement in principle between the parties has been reached.” The vessel has been moored in Great Bitter Lake, a large saltwater lake in Egypt that is part of the Suez Canal, seized under Egyptian law until the vessel’s owners paid a settlement that was once nearly $1 billion. 

  

  “Following extensive discussions with the Suez Canal Authority’s negotiating committee over the past few weeks, an agreement in principle between the parties has been reached,” the UK P&I Club, a protection and indemnity insurance company wrote in a Wednesday press release. “Together with the owner and the ship’s other insurers we are now working with the S.C.A. to finalize a signed settlement agreement as soon as possible.”

  UK P&I Club did not discuss exact details about the agreement. Over the last few months, Egypt demanded compensation of $916 million for the six-day disruption when Ever Given was stuck in the lower end of the canal. More recently, the insurer opposed a $600 million settlement. 

  According to the Egyptian newspaper Ahram Online, Egypt requested $550 million on the requirement that $200 million would be paid immediately. It’s still unclear what the current agreement in principle details. 

  After nearly three months and plenty of negotiations, it appears the Ever Given could soon be released from Egyptian control. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 20:20

• Escape From Woke Metropolises
  Escape From Woke Metropolises

  Authored by Rob Dreher via TheAmericanConservative.com,

  Last weekend in Chicago, there were 54 shootings, five of them fatal. This was one of the fatal shootings. Warning: it’s graphic:

  Chicago shooting of Gyovanny Arzuaga and Yasmin Perez on June 19 as they drove with their flag, 1 killed, 1 critically wounded in Humboldt Park pic.twitter.com/p9YcaZJmWU

  — 🇺🇸 Shavo 🇺🇸 (@d_shavo) June 20, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Look at these two dirtbags, just standing there filming it:

  

  Last week, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is black, declared that racism is a “public health emergency” in her city, and diverted $10 million in federal Covid funds to fight racism.

  Clearly, Chicago’s mayor has things well in hand, and has no problem at all facing reality. The Chicago Bears are thinking of relocating to a suburb for a bigger stadium, and Mayor Lightfoot seems more concerned about that than mass murders.Two years ago, she blamed Texas gun laws for Chicago’s killing sprees. But Chicago’s police superintendent said that same summer that the problem was that the cops keep re-arresting the same thugs, whom the criminal justice system recycle back onto the street.

  

  This is what happens when you elect Woke Democrats to run your city.

  By the way, Chicago’s DA Kim Foxx was backed by leftist billionaire George Soros, who has been pouring his money into electing progressive DAs in big cities. San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin is a Soros acolyte, as is Baltimore DA Marilyn Mosby.

  All those cities are overrun by crime.

  Reader Jonah R., who lives in suburban Maryland, left this comment:

  On Thursday four young black men drove to a public elementary school in the mostly white, affluent DC neighborhood of Cleveland Park, where they fired more than 40 shots at the school in front of nearly 150 witnesses, hitting two construction workers who were renovating the building and fortunately not hitting any children only because they were in nearby trailer classrooms because of the renovation. The police chased them and caught them when they crashed their car. So far there appears to be no explanation for it other than four black dudes wanted to go randomly shoot up a white school. Let me know if this makes the national news where you live. I’m sure it won’t.

  But this is what happens when criminals feel emboldened by anti-policing rhetoric.

  In Baltimore, where the DA has implemented a policy of not prosecuting misdemeanors and low-level crimes, criminals are starting to enjoy a free-for-all environment. The tourist/bar/restaurant neighborhood of Fells Point has seen multiple shootings in the past couple weeks, with one triple shooting occurring just 25 feet from a group of police officers. Some local businesses are refusing to pay their taxes and are putting the money in escrow instead. The neighborhood, already a place for a fun night out at the bars, has been looking like Mardi Gras in recent weeks, but without the cops enforcing laws like they do in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. There’s footage of drunks jumping on police cars while the cops just watch. About a week ago, someone went into Fells Point late at night and just randomly shot a bunch of cars. Some restaurants whose owners had been desperate to reopen are closing at 9 p.m. so their employees can get home safely. Some businesses are hiring private security. Police are not enforcing open container laws, parking and traffic regulations, or laws against people openly selling drugs and liquor on the streets. Only in the past few days have the cops come in, but in pointlessly massive numbers, and they’ve closed streets and manned checkpoints, going to the opposite extreme, as if to spite the neighborhood peons who complained.

  I haven’t checked the news from Minneapolis lately. Is the community of activist hobos that formed around the site of George Floyd’s death still illegally “occupying” the site and inviting anarchy? There were three fatal shootings there in their “autonomous zone” in 2020 and one fatal shooting so far this year.

  How about a year of activists trying to burn down federal buildings in Portland? Plus, staffing of the Portland police is at its lowest in decades, and there’s been a huge surge of brazen gang violence. According to the AP, Portland disbanded its special unit dedicated to curbing gun violence because activists believed it disproportionately harmed black people.

  This is what happens when the “defund the police” chant–which is, yes, a fringe activist fantasy–becomes policy because people are too afraid to stand up to aggressive activists. I live in a safe multicultural suburb, so I’m fine, but my friends and relatives in cities like DC, Baltimore, and New York are freaking out. You can’t for a minute pretend that the rhetoric of the past year didn’t play a role in this surge of violence in our cities.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 20:00

• GOP Sees CRT Battle As Potent Weapon In Midterms
  GOP Sees CRT Battle As Potent Weapon In Midterms

  As viral videos continue to emerge of pissed off parents putting school boards in their place over Critical Race Theory (CRT) – which charges an entire demographic with a collective crime, uses it as grounds to frame individuals within that demographic as perpetrators of that crime, and then seeks to strip condemned individuals of rights, dignity and equal protection based on that charge (via @AurelianofRome) – Republican lawmakers see an opportunity heading into midterms.

  In one blistering speech last week during a crowded district school board meeting in Illinois, parent Ty Smith, who is black, blasted CRT as an ideology that flies in the face of what Dr. Martin Luther King taught – instilling a fundamental tension and division between Americans.

  “Critical Race Theory is pretty much going to be teaching kids to hate each other, how to dislike each other…,” he said.

  More recently, parents in Loudoun County, Virginia – now “ground zero” in the fight against CRT, called out the “wokest and worst school board in America” this week, leading to arrests.

  UPDATE: Parents protesting CRT at Loudoun County School Board meeting declared an unlawful assembly, at least two arrests made when some refused to leave right away

  pic.twitter.com/vGvN24p9GJ

  — Benny (@bennyjohnson) June 23, 2021

  Now, according to The Hill, “some Republican candidates — like Glenn Youngkin, the party’s nominee for governor in Virginia and a former chief executive of the Carlyle Group — are using their opposition to critical race theory to paint themselves as defenders of traditional American values and patriotism.“

  “Critical race theory is not an academic curriculum. It is a political agenda to divide people and actually put people into different buckets and then pit them against one another,” said Youngkin in a recent Fox News appearance. “Critical race theory will not be in Virginia’s schools when I serve Virginians as the next governor.”

  Other Virginia Republicans are similarly jumping on the CRT bandwagon.

  “A lot of parents have overheard their kids’ lessons during virtual school and they didn’t like what they heard. America has had to work through problems but is not a country full of racists, and we shouldn’t be teaching our kids that our nation is fundamentally racist,” said state delegate Jason Miyares (R), a GOP nominee for attorney general. “We can’t survive as a nation if we are raising an entire generation of children to learn to hate their country.”

  Opponents of critical race theory have protested in several other Virginia school districts — Frederick County, Virginia Beach, Hanover County and Amherst County — all of which do not use the theory in their own curricula. 

  Youngkin’s opponent, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), has dismissed the debate as a political fabrication that is not on the top of voters’ minds. 

  “That’s another right-wing conspiracy,” McAuliffe said in audio apparently recorded by a tracker and reported by Fox News. “This is totally made up by Donald Trump and Glenn Youngkin. This is who they are. It’s a conspiracy theory.”  -The Hill

  “Critical race theory is an absolute disaster for the Democrats,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-RL), Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). “Parents want their schools to teach what I got taught: Reading, writing and arithmetic.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 19:40

• The "Great Reset" Is Here, Part 1: The New Blueprint For Worldwide Inflation
  The “Great Reset” Is Here, Part 1: The New Blueprint For Worldwide Inflation

  Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

  For years, currency analysts (myself included) have looked for signs of an international monetary “reset” that would diminish the dollar’s role as the leading reserve currency and replace it with a substitute, which would be agreed upon at some Bretton Woods-style monetary conference.

  

  Now, it looks like the move towards the long-expected Great Reset is accelerating.

  At the recent G7 summit in the UK, G7 leaders gave their blessings to a $100 billion allocation of IMF special drawing rights (SDRs) to help lower-income countries address the COVID-19 crisis.

  President Biden fully supports the idea. The White House issued the following statement:

  The United States and our G7 partners are actively considering a global effort to multiply the impact of the proposed Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation to the countries most in need…

  At potentially up to $100 billion in size, the proposed effort would further support health needs – including vaccinations…

  A separate press release from the same day continued the same sentiment, stating, “We strongly support the effort to recycle SDRs to further support health needs.”

  In another development, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said last Wednesday that she expected the fund’s governors to approve a $650 billion allocation of SDRs in mid-August.

  What exactly are SDRs?

  Basically, they’re world money.

  In 1969, the IMF created the SDR, possibly to serve as a source of liquidity and alternative to the dollar.

  In 1971, the dollar did devalue relative to gold and other major currencies. SDRs were issued by the IMF from 1970 to 1981. None were issued after 1981 until 2009 during the global financial crisis.

  The 2009 issuance was a case of the IMF “testing the plumbing” of the system to make sure it worked properly. Because zero SDRs were issued from 1981–2009, the IMF wanted to rehearse the governance, computational, and legal processes for issuing SDRs.

  The purpose was partly to alleviate liquidity concerns at the time, but it was also to make sure the system works in case a large, new issuance was needed on short notice. The 2009 experiment showed the system worked fine.

  Since 2009, the IMF has proceeded in slow steps to create a platform for massive new issuances of SDRs and establish a deep liquid pool of SDR-denominated assets.

  On January 7, 2011, the IMF issued a master plan for replacing the dollar with SDRs.

  This included creating an SDR bond market, SDR dealers, and ancillary facilities such as repos, derivatives, settlement and clearance channels, and the entire apparatus of a liquid bond market.

  A liquid bond market is critical. U.S. Treasury bonds are among the world’s most liquid securities, which makes the dollar a legitimate reserve currency.

  The IMF study recommended that the SDR bond market replicate the infrastructure of the U.S. Treasury market, with hedging, financing, settlement and clearance mechanisms substantially similar to those used to support trading in Treasury securities today.

  In August 2016, the World Bank announced that it would issue SDR-denominated bonds to private purchasers. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the largest bank in China, will be the lead underwriter on the deal.

  In September 2016, the IMF included the Chinese yuan in the SDR basket, giving China a seat at the monetary table.

  So, the framework has been created to expand the SDR’s scope.

  The SDR can be issued in abundance to IMF members and used in the future for a select list of the most important transactions in the world, including balance-of-payments settlements, oil pricing, and the financial accounts of the world’s largest corporations, such as Exxon Mobil, Toyota, and Royal Dutch Shell.

  The basic idea behind the SDR is that the global monetary system centered around the dollar is inherently unstable and needs to be reformed.

  Part of the problem is due to a process called Triffin’s Dilemma, named after economist Robert Triffin. Triffin said that the issuer of a dominant reserve currency had to run trade deficits so that the rest of the world could have enough of the currency to buy goods from the issuer and expand world trade.

  But, if you run deficits long enough, you would eventually go broke. This was said about the dollar in the early 1960s. The SDR would solve Triffin’s Dilemma.

  I wrote about SDRs and the global elite plans for them in the second chapter of my 2016 book, The Road to Ruin.

  Over the next several years, we will see the issuance of SDRs to transnational organizations, such as the U.N. and World Bank, for spending on climate change infrastructure and other elite pet projects outside the supervision of any democratically elected bodies.

  I call this the New Blueprint for Worldwide Inflation.

  But Triffin’s Dilemma is not the only dynamic that’s pushing the world away from the dollar.

  In Part 2, we show you why the weaponization of the dollar by the U.S. government is pushing the world to seek alternatives.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 19:20

• Fully Vaccinated Israelis May Be Forced To Quarantine After Exposure To "Delta" Variant
  Fully Vaccinated Israelis May Be Forced To Quarantine After Exposure To “Delta” Variant

  As concerns about the threat posed by the “Delta” variant, a mutant strain of COVID-19 first discovered in India that’s believed to be much more dangerous than rival strains, intensify, Israeli health officials have just been given the authority to quarantine pretty much anybody who is exposed to “Delta”, even if the individual is already fully vaccinated, Reuters reports.

  The heavy-handed decision comes after a warning by new Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Tuesday over new outbreaks caused by “Delta” . Bennett complained that daily infections have been rising again in Israel after weeks of a low plateau credited to the country’s record mass-vaccination drive.

  

  Under the updated Health Ministry directive, vaccinated or formerly infected people can be ordered to self-isolate for up to 14 days if authorities suspect they may have passed in “close contact with a carrier of a dangerous virus variant.”

  This could include having been passengers on the same plane, the ministry said, a possible dampener on Israel’s gradual opening of its borders to vaccinated summer tourists.

  Addressing the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz said fines of “thousands of shekels” might be levied against Israeli citizens or residents who travel to countries blacklisted as high COVID-19 risks.

  On June 16, the Health Ministry listed Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, Mexico and Russia as off-limits to Israeli citizens or residents unless they receive special permission.

  Some 55% of Israel’s 9.3MM population have received both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and a steep drop in cases had prompted most economic restrictions to be lifted. But just days earlier, Israel announced plans to start vaccinating teenagers between the ages of 12 and 15.

  Offering an example of how different countries are handling the potential threat posed by the “Delta” variant, analysts at Rabobank pointed out that the UK has a far larger presence of the Delta variant, but that hasn’t stopped it from allowing everyone to travel internationally from August; and Thailand, where COVID variants are also spreading, is opening up to tourism starting July 1 (in Phuket) and nationally beginning in October.

  Meanwhile, Israel, which became the first developed nation in the world to vaccinate its population using mostly Pfizer doses, has already reinstated its mask rules after briefly removing them last week.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 19:00

• Leading US Scientist Finds China Scrubbed Early COVID Data That Could Help Explain Origins
  Leading US Scientist Finds China Scrubbed Early COVID Data That Could Help Explain Origins

  A leading US expert in influenza viruses has discovered that early sequences of the coronavirus genome from a global database at the request of Chinese researchers.

  

  Professor Jesse Bloom, who works at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, found a project by Wuhan University which sequenced 34 positive COVID-19 cases from January 2020, as well as 16 cases in early February in which researchers looked into diagnosing a SARS-CoV-2 infection using a technique known as nanopore sequencing.

  While the results of their researcher were published in March as a pre-print, and in June following peer review, the genomic sequences obtained during the course of their research – and uploaded to the US-maintained Sequence Read Archive (SRA) within the National Institutes of Health – were removed by a process that could have only taken place if the SRA staff were asked to do so, according to The Telegraph.

  But when I went to Sequence Read Archive, I found entire project was gone! (Note that as detailed below, this does *not* imply malfeasance by NIH. Sequence Read Archive policy allows submitters to delete by e-mail request.) (3/n) pic.twitter.com/fEzOaVYZLZ

  — Bloom Lab (@jbloom_lab) June 22, 2021

  The sequences, which have been recovered from cloud storage and published in a pre-print, have been described by experts as “the most important data” on the origins of Covid-19 in more than a year. 

  The recovered data does not support either the “natural origins” or “lab leak” theory over the pandemic’s source, scientists say. However, it suggests the virus was circulating in Wuhan earlier than previously thought, and could perhaps point toward answers on the origins of Sars-CoV-2 – answers that could not only help end this pandemic but prevent the next one. 

  The emergence of the sequences also suggests there is more data from the early days of the epidemic that China is sitting on, and which may be recoverable by investigators. 

  Bloom writes in a lengthy Twitter thread: “Although events that led to emergence of #SARSCoV2 in Wuhan are unclear (zoonosis vs lab accident), everyone agrees deep ancestors are coronaviruses from bats. Therefore, we’d expect the first #SARSCoV2 sequences would be more similar to bat coronaviruses, and as #SARSCoV2 continued to evolve it would become more divergent from these ancestors. But that is *not* the case! Instead, early Huanan Seafood Market #SARSCoV2 viruses are more different from bat coronaviruses than #SARSCoV2 viruses collected later in China and even other countries. @lpipes @ras_nielsen give nice technical analysis at https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/4/1537/6028993.”

  Therefore, we’d expect the first #SARSCoV2 sequences would be more similar to bat coronaviruses, and as #SARSCoV2 continued to evolve it would become more divergent from these ancestors. But that is *not* the case! (8/n)

  — Bloom Lab (@jbloom_lab) June 22, 2021

  Same result if we use other bat coronaviruses like RpYN06 or RmYN02. To see this, go to https://t.co/4qZbDRjFvw for an interactive plot that allows you to select the bat coronavirus outgroup and mouse over points for strain details. (11/n)

  — Bloom Lab (@jbloom_lab) June 22, 2021

  There are also broader implications. First, fact this dataset was deleted should make us skeptical that all other relevant early Wuhan sequences have been shared. We already know many labs in China ordered to destroy early samples: https://t.co/3Uol5gdwON (16/n) pic.twitter.com/ajtm8SxfVu

  — Bloom Lab (@jbloom_lab) June 22, 2021

  The NIH confirmed that the removal of the data, telling the Telegraph that they had “reviewed the submitting investigator’s request to withdraw the data,” and removed it.

  “The requestor indicated the sequence information had been updated, was being submitted to another database, and wanted the data removed from SRA to avoid version control issues,” said a spokesperson, adding “Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data.”

  Bloom published his findings on the preprint server bioRxiv.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 18:44

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Glencore CEO Says Commodity Prices Will Stay Elevated For Longer
  Glencore CEO Says Commodity Prices Will Stay Elevated For Longer

  Some commodities have taken a beating over the last week after the Federal Reserve signaled for interest-rate increases, a rising dollar, and China’s efforts to slow inflation. The question readers should ask is what happens next? 

  Well, either Ark’s Cathie Wood, who has predicted a ‘serious correction’ in commodities and a return to deflation will be correct, or Ivan Glasenberg, the CEO of commodities trading giant Glencore, who told Bloomberg Tuesday on the second day of the Qatar Economic Forum 2021 that the overall rally in commodities will continue. 

  Only one person can be right. 

  Focusing on Glasenberg’s latest comments, he believes massive infrastructure spending in China, various commodities tangled in disruption due to COVID, which tighten up supplies, along with other infrastructure spending projects worldwide, including the prospects of one in the US, will continue to elevate commodity prices. 

  

  He said the Chinese have been trying to push commodity prices lower but believes that “is a short-term game because the underlying fundamentals of supply and demand will keep prices higher.” 

  Glasenberg said the Chinese are taking commodities from their strategic stockpile and flooding the market to push prices lower, but that can only happen for so long until they need to restock. 

  He was hesitant to call the post-COVID move in commodities a “supercycle,” adding that “commodity prices will stay strong for a long while longer.” 

  The next catalyst that moves commodity prices higher is the once-in-a-generation investment in America’s infrastructure via the Biden administration. Glasenberg said once the infrastructure package is passed, it’ll take the shovel-ready projects about 18 months to get going, adding to further demand for commodities. 

  Important to note a bullish yearly hammer was confirmed in 2020 on the Bloomberg Commodity Index. 

  

  He then said, “both parts of the world,” including China and the US, will be pushing infrastructure projects simultaneously. 

  Glasenberg questions how long will it take for new mining projects to come online to meet this new demand, warning that new mines may take longer than previous cycles. 

  He added that the mining industry would struggle to keep pace with the new “demand” coming from the green new economy. 

  One person can only be correct. It’s either Wood with her suggestion of commodity price slump or Glencore’s Glasenberg that elevated commodity prices will continue. 

  For Glencore’s Glasenberg full interview, fast forward to the one-hour eleven minute mark. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 02:45

• Ukraine And UK To Build Warships, Establish Naval Bases Together
  Ukraine And UK To Build Warships, Establish Naval Bases Together

  Via SouthFront.org,

  Ukraine and Great Britain have agreed on the joint construction of warships and bases for the domestic Navy, the press service of the Defense Ministry of Ukraine announced.

  

  On June 21 in Odesa aboard the HMS DEFENDER missile destroyer of the Royal Navy, Defence Procurement Minister of Great Britain Jeremy Quin and Deputy Defense Minister of Ukraine Oleksandr Myroniuk signed “a memorandum on maritime partnership projects between the UK industry consortium and the Ukrainian Navy,” the ministry said.

  In particular, the memorandum provides for the joint design and construction of warships in Ukraine and Great Britain, the reconstruction of Ukrainian shipbuilding enterprises and the construction of two bases of the Ukrainian Naval Forces.

  The signing ceremony took place aboard one of the most modern ships of the Royal Navy, HMS Defender, and was witnessed by the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov, the First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin and the British Ambassador to Ukraine Melinda Simmons.

  They also observed joint training activity of Ukrainian, UK and US Special forces.

  HMS Defender arrived in Odesa on Friday. This magnificent warship is the second Royal Navy ship to visit Odesa in the last couple of weeks after HMS TRENT.

  Joint naval projects and regular warships visits are important examples of the close ties between the UK and Ukraine, as partners and friendly nations.

  The HMS DEFENDER destroyer arrived in Odesa last Friday, June 18. This is the second Royal Navy warship to visit Odesa in the last few weeks, after HMS TRENT.

  “This is another step in the development of bilateral cooperation between Ukraine and the UK, which is aimed at strengthening the Ukrainian fleet as it continues to face danger in the Black and Azov seas,” the Ukrainian defense ministry said.

  The UK will help Ukraine revive its shipbuilding industry, the Ukrainian defense ministry said. The two countries will design and build warships in Ukraine and in the UK and set up two bases for the Ukrainian navy.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 02:00

• Who Is A "Terrorist" In Biden's America?
  Who Is A “Terrorist” In Biden’s America?

  Authored by Whitney Webb via TheLastAmericanVagabond.com,

  Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.

  

  In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.

  Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.

  Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation. 

  Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power. 

  Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.

  It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”

  In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.

  AG Merrick Garland: “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethically motivated violent extremists specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.”
  pic.twitter.com/4JtruuMSv2

  — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 15, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included. 

  In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.” 

  The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.

  Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists. 

  Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).

  Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.

  Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.” 

  Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason. 

  Pillars of Tyranny

  The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.” 

  The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.

  The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.

  The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online. 

  Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States. 

  The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.

  Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.” 

  The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.” 

  Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangout reported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.

  Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing. 

  It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, thus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences. 

  The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.

  To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):

  “The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”

  Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents. 

  DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.” 

  The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”

  In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.

  Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy. 

  Calling Their Shots?

  While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.

  Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.

  Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:

  “And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”

  This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestrated psyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear. 

  It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/23/2021 – 00:05

• China Seizes "Large Cache Of Drugs" Hidden In Soy Ship From Brazil
  China Seizes “Large Cache Of Drugs” Hidden In Soy Ship From Brazil

  China’s Brazilian soybean imports have skyrocketed in May after previously delayed cargo arrived. In one of the shipments, Chinese customs agents found hundreds of pounds of cocaine. 

  

  Qingdao Customs in east China’s Shandong Province seized 474 pounds of cocaine, the largest bust this year by the customs office. 

  According to state-run media Xinhua, “authorities swung into action after receiving a tip-off that a foreign ship with a large cache of drugs was heading for Qingdao Port.” The ship originated from Brazil, hauling 67,000 tons of soybeans, and had 21 crew on board. 

  Upon arriving at Qingdao, customs agents searched the vessel and found nine suspicious packages in seven cargo holds filled with soybean. Further laboratory tests confirmed the suspicious packages have a total of 474 pounds of cocaine. 

  The last major cocaine shipment seized at Qingdao was 794 pounds in 2017. 

  Brazil is the largest supplier of soybeans, and China has been on a buying spree. So there’s no telling how many cocaine shipments hidden within soy cargos have slipped through Qingdao. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 23:45

• Fact-Checker Poynter Demands Local News Reduce Crime Story Coverage Because It Fuels "Systemic Racism"
  Fact-Checker Poynter Demands Local News Reduce Crime Story Coverage Because It Fuels “Systemic Racism”

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  Fact-checking institute Poynter is demanding that local news stations reduce coverage of stories that connect “Black and brown communities” to violent crime because it is fueling “systemic racism.”

  

  Yes, really.

  “Local news reporters have amplified narratives that connect Black and brown communities to crime. As a result, we have fostered systemic racism through our crime coverage.”https://t.co/WWaZAAl8qM

  — Poynter (@Poynter) June 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The institute, which oversees the International Fact-Checking Network which operates Politifact, put out a statement urging journalists to “break the cycle of crime reporting.”

  Arrests for misdemeanors disproportionately affect people of color. Systemic racism compounds the injustice as reviews have shown that prosecutors are more likely to exclude Black jurors from trials.

  The crime and courts beat exists because it’s constantly churning out stories. Much of that content is directly related to public safety. Journalists can be smarter about who we cover and the follow-up stories we provide. Kelly McBride, who chairs the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at Poynter, said, “Local news reporters have amplified narratives that connect Black and brown communities to crime. As a result, we have fostered systemic racism through our crime coverage.”

  It’s within our power as journalists to break that cycle. We don’t need to publicize the crime blotter simply because it fills airtime or generates clicks.

  The announcement was made at the same time that Politifact asserted that a claim the Austin-American Statesman deliberately omitted a mass shooting suspect’s description because he was black is “false.”

  However, the original report stated the reason for not including a description of the suspect was because it “could be harmful in perpetuating stereotypes,” meaning that Politifact is outright lying.

  With the addition of Politifact’s “false” rating (which itself is false), the story will now receive less circulation on social media networks.

  “Poynter president Neil Brown hates the fact people can still see what’s really happening in our streets despite their massive censorship regime and their blacklists,” writes Chris Menahan.

  Indeed, it appears as though Poynter thinks that by obfuscating the true perpetrators of violent crime, then it will cease to exist.

  The victims may have a different opinion.

  This also once again underscores how ‘fact-checking’ organizations exist to censor information and hide narratives that are inconvenient for the establishment.

  *  *  *

  Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

  In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 23:25

• Another Starlink Issue? Redditor Reports Lightning-Strike Blows Apart Dish 
  Another Starlink Issue? Redditor Reports Lightning-Strike Blows Apart Dish 

  During last week’s massive heat wave that scorched much of the US, some “r/Starlink” Redditors complained their satellite internet dishes were knocked offline because of overheating issues. A different week, a new problem for beta users of SpaceX’s broadband service called Starlink as it appears no match for lighting strikes. 

  On Monday, Redditor “Coryhero” posted a picture of what seems to be the remaining bits of a Starlink system after a lightning strike on Sunday blew it to pieces. He wrote in the post, “House was struck by lightning last night. RIP Starlink.”

  

  In a continuation post, Coryhero said the entire Starlink system “exploded,” and it also took out his “DSL internet modem” and “gaming desktop.” 

  He said, “we’re completely without internet right now.” 

  Coryhero contacted Starlink support, who said he would have to fork over “$375 for a replacement refurbished dish,” adding, “not quite what I was hoping for, with all of the other costs I’m going to have to deal with. I might have to just go back to DSL for now, unfortunately.” 

  Last week, in a completely separate issue, dishes were overheating in the hot weather, producing an error message that read, “Offline Thermal Shutdown.” The dish “overheated” and “Starlink will reconnect after cooling down,” the error message continued. 

  

  Some Redditors have found a workaround to operate the satellite internet dish in the summer: build a tent.

  

  The list of issues continues to pile up for Starlink as Redditors report the dish is no match for Mother Nature. 

  Since Starlink is in “initial beta service,” hopefully, engineers can resolve these problems. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 23:05

• So Much Of What The CIA Used To Do Covertly It Now Does Overtly
  So Much Of What The CIA Used To Do Covertly It Now Does Overtly

  Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

  In the later years of an abusive relationship I was in, my abuser had become so confident in how mentally caged he had me that he’d start overtly telling me what he is and what he was doing. He flat-out told me he was a sociopath and a manipulator, trusting that I was so submitted to his will by that point that I’d gaslight myself into reframing those statements in a sympathetic light. Toward the end one time he told me “I am going to rape you,” and then he did, and then he talked about it to some friends trusting that I’d run perception management on it for him.

  The better he got at psychologically twisting me up in knots and the more submitted I became, the more open he’d be about it. He seemed to enjoy doing this, taking a kind of exhibitionistic delight in showing off his accomplishments at crushing me as a person, both to others and to me. Like it was his art, and he wanted it to have an audience to appreciate it.

  

  I was reminded of this while watching a recent Fox News appearance by Glenn Greenwald where he made an observation we’ve discussed here previously about the way the CIA used to have to infiltrate the media, but now just openly has US intelligence veterans in mainstream media punditry positions managing public perception.

  “If you go and Google, and I hope your viewers do, Operation Mockingbird, what you will find is that during the Cold War these agencies used to plot how to clandestinely manipulate the news media to disseminate propaganda to the American population,” Greenwald said.

  “They used to try to do it secretly. They don’t even do it secretly anymore. They don’t need Operation Mockingbird. They literally put John Brennan who works for NBC and James Clapper who works for CNN and tons of FBI agents right on the payroll of these news organizations. They now shape the news openly to manipulate and to deceive the American population.”

  In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “The CIA and the Media” reporting that the CIA had covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as Operation Mockingbird. It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media are meant to report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the agendas of spooks and warmongers.

  Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and the public is too brainwashed and gaslit to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news pundits. The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor, and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like Tucker Carlson.

  They’re just rubbing it in our faces now. Like they’re showing off.

  Bellingcat got funding from the US gov-funded NED. It acts like an unofficial NATO propagandist, obsessively focusing on Western enemies. pic.twitter.com/DDegClagkj

  — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 25, 2017

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  And that’s just the media. We also see this flaunting behavior exhibited in the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a propaganda operation geared at sabotaging foreign governments not aligned with the US which according to its own founding officials was set up to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly. The late author and commentator William Blum makes this clear:

  [I]n 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to “support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts”. Notice the “nongovernmental” — part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

  “We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” said Carl Gershman in 1986, while he was president of the Endowment. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”

  And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

  In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

  We see NED’s fingerprints all over pretty much any situation where the western power alliance needs to manage public perception about a CIA-targeted government, from Russia to Hong Kong to Xinjiang to the imperial propaganda operation known as Bellingcat.

  “The U.S. had financed some of the protester groups through the CIA aligned National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Technology Fund. If the U.S. wants to continue instigating unrest in Hong Kong it must now move those programs to the CIA and distribute the money secretly.” https://t.co/kpmcikpjb1

  — Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) July 1, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  To further #humanrights & human dignity for all people in China, the National Endowment for Democracy has funded Uyghur groups since 2004. #NEDemocracy #HumanRightsDay https://t.co/C0LJEyWxq1 pic.twitter.com/OqZdehdxXN

  — NEDemocracy (@NEDemocracy) December 10, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Hell, intelligence insiders are just openly running for office now. In an article titled “The CIA Democrats in the 2020 elections”, World Socialist Website documented the many veterans of the US intelligence cartel who ran in elections across America in 2018 and 2020:

  “In the course of the 2018 elections, a large group of former military-intelligence operatives entered capitalist politics as candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination in 50 congressional seats — nearly half the seats where the Democrats were targeting Republican incumbents or open seats created by Republican retirements. Some 30 of these candidates won primary contests and became the Democratic candidates in the November 2018 election, and 11 of them won the general election, more than one quarter of the 40 previously Republican-held seats captured by the Democrats as they took control of the House of Representatives. In 2020, the intervention of the CIA Democrats continues on what is arguably an equally significant scale.”

  So they’re just getting more and more brazen the more confident they feel about how propaganda-addled and submissive the population has become. They’re laying more and more of their cards on the table. Soon the CIA will just be openly selling narcotics door to door like Girl Scout cookies.

  Or maybe not. I said my ex got more and more overt about his abuses in the later years of our relationship because those were the later years. I did eventually expand my own consciousness of my own inner workings enough to clear the fears and unexamined beliefs I had that he was using as hooks to manipulate me. Maybe, as humanity’s consciousness continues to expand, the same will happen for the people and their abusive relationship with the CIA.

  *  *  *

  The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.

  Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 22:45

• "It's A Sovereignty Issue" – Bermuda Pushes Back Against G-7 Minimum Corporate Tax Proposal
  “It’s A Sovereignty Issue” – Bermuda Pushes Back Against G-7 Minimum Corporate Tax Proposal

  Members of the G-7 may have agreed to a minimum global corporate tax framework that would set the minimum rate at 15%, which is higher than reputed “tax havens” like Ireland and Singapore. But the deal that President Biden has tasked Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen with striking is still facing opposition from a coterie of low-tax countries that have taken umbrage at what they see as Washington’s attempt to meddle in their domestic affairs.

  

  As dozens of OECD members hold meetings to work on a framework that would be more palatable for all the NGO’s members, the FT sat down for an interview with the financial minister of Bermuda, the island nation best known as a low-tax haven for financial institutions like insurers and reinsurers.

  The former banker, Curtis Dickinson, said he was loath to impose a minimum corporate tax on the island of 64K people, arguing that the small nation’s popilation was still struggling to recover from both the pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis. It all feels like a violation of Bermuda’s “sovereignty”.

  “Bermuda has a right to determine for itself what it thinks is an appropriate tax system for its jurisdiction,” he said. “We have a system in place for 200 years. It’s not perfect. It does require some adjustment. But we would like to do that on our own and not have someone tell us to change our system to fit some global initiative…I would say it’s a sovereignty issue.”

  Dickinson added that taxing corporate profits would make Bermuda more bureaucratic and create complexity for businesss, Dickinson said, threatening the country’s role as a global hub for reinsurance. Bermuda collects revenue via taxes on payrolls and property, customs duties and fees charged to international businesses.

  Working class Bermudians struggle with the high cost of the island’s mostly imported goods, which are also heavily taxed. A bartender who spoke to the FT reporter quipped that Bermuda’s reputation as a “tax haven” is a misnomer: “It’s not a tax haven, it’s a tax hidden.”

  Still, the island’s “consumption-based” system makes life easier for corporations and businesses.

  “Bermuda’s current tax system…is consumption based – it is a function of seeking to be simple to administer, simple to file,” he said. “That is the system we have had in place…It has not been changed to encourage people to move here. It has been what it has been. The system works for us.”

  “Bermuda has already been weighing whether to change up its tax regime. A review carried out by the island’s government in 2018 determined that the tax code wasn’t neither “fair nor equitable.”

  To be sure, while other island tax havens known for having more corporate P.O. boxes than people (think the Caymans), Bermuda’s system of taxation has helped transform the island into a legitimate financial center, complete with the armies of actuaries who populate much of the island.

  Dickinson’s argument is that it is unfair to group Bermuda with tax havens that have more corporate mailboxes than people. He said it was an “anomaly” when Google last decade shifted tens of billions of dollars through its Dutch holding company to Bermuda under an intellectual property licensing scheme called the “double Irish Dutch sandwich.” Google has scrapped the arrangement, which enabled it to delay paying US taxes.

  Thanks to its tax system and streamlined regulatory regime, Dickinson said, Bermuda has become a proper financial centre. The big buildings of the leading insurers – AIG, Chubb and BF&M, among them – loom over the capital. More recent arrivals include Conduit Re, which raised $1.1bn last year through a London Stock Exchange listing, and Vantage, a reinsurer launched in 2020 with $1bn in equity capital from Carlyle, Hellman & Friedman and its management.

  […]

  “We want companies here that have boots on the ground,” Dickinson said.

  As of now, financial services companies (mostly insurance) generate more than half of Bermuda’s GDP.

  

  That’s not to say the island’s leadership is completely opposed to reform. In 2018, Bermuda’s own Tax Reform Commission highlighted the need for change after meeting with more than 50 stakeholder groups including local and international businesses.

  A recurring theme was that Bermuda’s tax structure was “neither fair nor equitable,” the report said. “There was a consensus…that Bermuda’s tax structure placed a disproportionate burden of tax on those least able to pay,” Dickinson said.

  But that doesn’t mean that re-jiggering the island’s tax policy to better suit Washington’s needs will make much of a difference.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 22:25

• "Educate Yourself" – Seattle Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaints About 'Whites & Accomplices' Paying "Reparations Fee" For Black Pride Parade
  “Educate Yourself” – Seattle Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaints About ‘Whites & Accomplices’ Paying “Reparations Fee” For Black Pride Parade

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  There is a controversy in Seattle over plans for a pride event to charge people more based on their race. The Seattle Human Rights Commission is under fire this week after sending a letter dismissing a complaint over the announcement that the Taking B(l)ack Pride on June 26th would charge White entrants a “reparations” fee. The Commission told Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson of Capitol Hill Pride that they needed to “educate” themselves and consider the harm that they would cause by being participants in the event.

  

  Promotional material for Taking B(l)ack Pride was posted on Facebook as a “BLACK AND BROWN QUEER TRANS CENTERED, PRIORITIZED, VALUED, EVENT.” The Facebook page adds: “White allies and accomplices are welcome to attend but will be charged a $10 to $50 reparations fee that will be used to keep this event free of cost for BLACK AND BROWN Trans and Queer COMMUNITY.”

  Capitol Hill Pride organizers Philip Lipson and Charlette LeFevre  took offense and wrote to the Commission that “We consider this reverse discrimination in its worse (sic) form and we feel we are being attacked for not supporting due to disparaging and hostile e-mails. Please review this event’s stated admission policy as we feel this event is violating Seattle, King County, State and Federal equality laws.”

  Capitol Hill Pride sent us this note 1/2 pic.twitter.com/te62OaQPOY

  — Seattle HumanRights (@SeattleHRC) June 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  It would seem a fair complaint since the event was engaging in open racial discrimination.

  After all, the Seattle Human Rights Commission advises the city “in order to educate them on methods to prevent and eliminate discrimination city-wide.” 

  Lipson and LeFevre however received a letter that shamed them for even raising a racially discriminatory practice.

  The Commission not only shamed them but posted the response so others could read. 

  The Commission advised them if possible, to “educate yourself on the harm it may cause Seattle’s BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) in your pursuit of a free ticket to an event that is not expressly meant for you and your entertainment.”

  Our response to Capitol Hill Pride 2/2 pic.twitter.com/R7gcNNnvNb

  — Seattle HumanRights (@SeattleHRC) June 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Commission stressed that charging people more based on race “does not in fact violate any of your human rights as stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.” The Commission justified the discriminatory policy on the basis of past discrimination against these groups:

  “They often face shame not only from the cis-heteronormative community, but within the queer community at large as well. In making the event free for the Black Queer Community, the organizers of this event are extending a courtesy so rarely extended; by providing a free and safe space to express joy, share story, and be in community.

  …Furthermore, we would urge you to examine the very real social dynamics and ramifications of this issue.”

  We recently discussed how the Biden Administration has been held to be discriminating in different programs giving preferences based on race and gender. What is interesting is that the Commission only considers itself as operating under the United Nations Declaration and makes no reference to the United States Constitution which prohibits such discrimination. Indeed, racist organizations once justified excluding minorities from lunch counters and events based on the claim that such spaces are not set aside for such individual or their entertainment.

  Nevertheless, such “justice pricing” is in vogue. Groups are now increasing asserting that they should be allowed to engage in raw discrimination as victims of past discrimination.

  This is a private group but it appears to be selling tickets and may require a city permit. The city anti-discrimination laws cover all public accommodations and prohibit discrimination based on race.  The Seattle Office for Civil Rights enforces Seattle’s civil rights laws which include protections against discrimination in employment, public places, housing, and contracting.

  Notably, this sensitive subject has led to some sharp words even on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in 2007 that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  In 2014, the Court ruled 6-2 in Schuette v. Bamn, that Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action was constitutional.  Justice Sotomayor chided Roberts with a reframing of his famous line by saying: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” She went on to write in dissent:

  “Race matters. Race matters in part because of the long history of racial minorities being denied access to the political process. … Race also matters because of persistent racial inequality in society — inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities.

  And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away…Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.’”

  Roberts responded by rebutting the implied criticism for raising discriminatory practices even in the name of fighting discrimination:

  “The dissent states that ‘[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.’ And it urges that ‘[r]ace matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.’

  But it is not ‘out of touch with reality’ to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and — if so — that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.”

  What is disconcerting is not just the dismissive attitude of the Commission but how it views discriminatory policies as secondary or irrelevant to human rights if it favors particular groups.  It does not matter that people are treated differently solely on the basis of their race. Indeed, it does not even warrant a consideration of countervailing constitutional and legal authorities. It is done in the name of equity and thus it is treated as not just correct but beyond question. Indeed, an objection to the policy is treated as a lack of understanding and sensitivity, requiring further education.

  The question is now what the City of Seattle will do and whether a court will give this matter more thought than the Seattle Human Rights Commission.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 22:05

• Amazon Is Getting Into The Autonomous Trucking Business
  Amazon Is Getting Into The Autonomous Trucking Business

  While Jeff Bezos may be out at Amazon, his plans for conquering every single industry on Earth while maintaining Amazon’s unholy dominance in e-commerce seem to be firmly in tact. 

  Along those lines, Amazon announced this week that it had placed an order for 1,000 autonomous driving systems from self-driving truck technology startup Plus – and that it had also acquired an option to as much as a 20% stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. 

  Amazon will now have “the right to buy preferred shares of Plus via a warrant at a price of $0.46647 per share”, equating to about a 20% stake based on Plus’s pre-SPAC-merger share count, the report notes.

  The move could have obvious implications for both the autonomous vehicle industry, where other key players like Tesla and Workhorse will take note of Amazon’s entrance into the area – and in logistics, where Amazon is pushing the envelope forward for all e-commerce companies to consider how they handle their own logistics internally. 

  

  Plus is headquartered in Cupertino, California and backed by Sequoia Capital China. It is developing autonomous technology for long-haul trucking, the report says. It currently is set to have a valuation of $3.3 billion and it raised $150 million in a recent PIPE deal with names like BlackRock and D.E. Shaw. 

  Among its other investors are Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp., GSR Ventures Management and a Chinese long-haul company known in English as Full Truck Alliance.

  Plus has also worked with Chinese delivery company SF Holding Co., which uses Plus-enabled trucks that can cover about 932 miles per day. State owned entity China FAW Group Co. has plans of “mass production” for jointly developed trucks with Plus beginning as soon as this quarter, Bloomberg noted.

  The potential investment from Amazon isn’t all that surprising, as Plus recently hired Chuck Joseph, formerly of Amazon, to help the company scale up production and promote its technology. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 21:45

• Georgia Conducting Secret 2020 Election Review Over Suspicious Mail-In Ballots
  Georgia Conducting Secret 2020 Election Review Over Suspicious Mail-In Ballots

  Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearInvestigations.com,

  After several Fulton County, Ga., poll monitors testified last year that boxes of mail-in ballots for Joe Biden looked liked they’d been run through a photocopy machine, state investigators quietly broke the seal on one suspicious box and inspected the hundreds of votes it contained for signs of fraud, RealClearInvestigations has learned exclusively.

  

  At the same time, a key whistleblower told RCI that state investigators pressured her to recant her story about what she and other poll monitors had observed — what they called unusually “pristine” mail-in ballots while sorting through them during last November’s hand recount.

  “I felt I was under investigation,” said Suzi Voyles, a longtime Fulton County poll manager whose sworn affidavits have been used by election watchdogs to sue the county for access to the ballots in question.

  Although the ballots are at the center of disputes about the Georgia presidential race, which Joe Biden won by just 12,000 votes, the state never disclosed its probe to the public or to election watchdogs suing to inspect the ballots.

  State officials also neglected to inform the judge hearing the lawsuit that they were conducting such an inspection, even though the judge had issued a protective order over the ballots in January. In a nine-page amicus brief recently filed in the case, attorneys for the office of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urged Superior Court Judge Brian Amero to deny petitioners’ requests to inspect the ballots, calling them a “fishing expedition.”

  Frances Watson, chief investigator for the secretary of state’s office, confirmed in a statement to RCI that she sent investigators to Fulton County earlier this year to inspect the batches of sealed ballots. Poll monitors involved in last November’s hand recount had described the mail-in ballots in sworn affidavits as devoid of creases and folds and featuring identically bubbled-in marks for Biden. But the state said it could not find any ballots matching that description.

  “Our investigators looked into it and didn’t find anything,” she said, while adding the investigation is “still ongoing.”

  The watchdogs question why state officials did not disclose their activities to the court and fear they may have “tampered” with the sealed ballots, which are at the center of their lawsuit seeking access to all 147,000 absentee ballots cast during the 2020 election in Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta.

  Led by longtime Georgia poll watcher Garland Favorito, founder of VoterGA.org, the court petitioners say the state has failed to inform the judge overseeing their case that they broke the chain of custody over the pallets of shrink-wrapped absentee ballots warehoused in a locked county facility in Atlanta.

  “If the secretary of state’s office did that, they tampered with the ballots and violated Georgia state law,” which restricts the handling of ballots to authorized elections officials involved in the tabulation and care of the ballots, Favorito said.

  He also noted that Judge Amero had placed the ballots under a protective order in January. “They would have had to ask for a court order to unseal and inspect those ballots and they never did that.”

  Raffensperger’s office seemed to acknowledge the ballots were still under seal when it urged Amero to prevent the watchdogs from inspecting the ballots.

  “The security and confidentiality of ballots is to be strictly maintained,” attorneys for Raffensperger argued in the brief they filed with Amero in April, “and the court should be cautious in granting petitioners’ access to ballots that Georgia law requires to remain under seal, which makes it a felony as soon as petitioners were to lay hands on them.”

  Raffensperger’s office did not respond to questions about why it did not inform the court about its probe, although it acknowledged that this is the first time its inspection of the ballots – which began in early January – has been publicly disclosed. Judge Amero did not respond to requests for comment.

  Biden narrowly won Georgia thanks to a late-night tally of absentee ballots in Fulton and other Democratic strongholds. The revelation that state authorities have already unsealed and investigated the ballots in question is a new twist in a case that has seen the firing of poll managers who blew the whistle on the suspicious ballots; a recent breach of security at the warehouse that Fulton County officials were supposed to be guarding around the clock; and an 11th-hour attempt by county officials to dismiss the court-ordered inspection of those ballots – many of which came from Atlanta area drop boxes whose chain of custody documentation has mysteriously turned up missing.

  Last month Amero ordered Fulton County to unseal its 147,000 absentee ballots and allow the petitioners to inspect them under certain restrictions, but the county filed a motion to dismiss the case. Amero is expected to rule on the motion later this month.

  The issue is further muddied by Suzi Voyles’ allegation, never previously reported, that she was pressured to recant her testimony about the pristine ballots. In sworn affidavits last November, Suzi Voyles said she observed that a large batch of mail-in ballots for Biden did not appear to have been folded or handled like she would have expected from her two decades of working elections in the county. She also said that the marks for Biden were identical, as though they had been filled in by a copying machine rather than a pen or pencil.

  In a Jan. 7 interview, which took place at a secretary of state’s office in Atlanta, Voyles told RCI that an investigator identifying himself as Paul Braun “grilled me for over two hours” about her testimony. She said he was joined by another official whom she said was from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. She added that the investigators did not have a copy of her affidavit and did not know the box number and batch numbers of the ballots in question.

  “I smelled a rat when they didn’t know the batch numbers when they were clearly denoted in my affidavit,” Voyles said.

  She added the investigators “gave no indication” they had gone to the warehouse to find the suspicious ballots or were conducting any kind of forensic investigation. Voyles said the investigators kept trying to convince her she might have been mistaken about her observations.

  “I did not recant,” she asserted.

  The ballots that I saw had been pre-printed. It’s a very serious thing in my opinion. That’s what I swore to under penalty of perjury. Recanting would be perjuring myself.”

  Watson told RCI that Voyles “stated that she may have been mistaken about the batch number and provided a different batch number.”

  “I never said that,” Voyles insisted.

  “The second batch number provided by Ms. Voyles did not exist,” Watson added.

  Voyles contended she never provided any other batch numbers. Watson also revealed that “investigators went to Fulton County and reviewed the batches identified by Ms. Voyles, but found no ballots that looked as Ms. Voyles described.” Favorito said his group’s attorney plans to file a motion to depose Watson and Braun to understand exactly what investigators have done regarding the boxes of absentee ballots in question.

  Favorito said he does not doubt Voyles’ testimony and said the ballot images his group has reviewed support her account of anomalies.

  “At no time has Susan Voyles claimed she was mistaken,” Favorito said.

  “She has consistently stood by her affidavit since she submitted it almost seven months ago.”

  Asked if Voyles is under criminal investigation, Georgia Secretary of State Communications Director Ari Schaffer said, “I have no reason to believe she’s under investigation for perjury.” Last December, Raffensperger “condemned” the unexplained firing of Voyles by Fulton County elections officials and called on them to rehire her.

  As RCI previously reported, Voyles is one of four Fulton County poll monitors who signed affidavits swearing they observed the same pattern of irregularities in stacks of mail-in ballots for Biden. All of them suggested the ballots had been photocopied.

  Favorito, who did not vote for Trump, said the state has also tried to interview one other witness – poll monitor Robin Hall – and said he himself is under investigation. He suggested state investigators are trying to intimidate witnesses into backing off their testimony, and are more interested in investigating whistleblowers than finding evidence of ballot fraud.

  Schaffer said he was unsure whether the other affiants have been interviewed. “I’ll have to check on the other three” witnesses, he said.

  Favorito added that the discovery of hard evidence of fraud in Georgia’s largest county would be embarrassing for Raffensperger, who is running for reelection with little support from the Georgia GOP, which recently censured him for creating “opportunities for fraud” by agreeing to the relaxation of voting rules during the 2020 election.

  “He is worried that we will uncover serious wrongdoing on the part of the secretary of state, not just Fulton County,” Favorito said.

  Voyles pointed out that Raffensperger has been too quick to declare the 2020 Georgia election free of fraud. Most recently, he was blindsided by revelations that Fulton County election officials had “misplaced” the required chain-of-custody forms documenting the collection of almost 20,000 mail-in ballots from 36 largely unsupervised drop-off boxes Raffensperger agreed to let Democrat-controlled Fulton County distribute across the Atlanta area ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

  “New revelations that Fulton County is unable to produce all ballot drop-box transfer documents will be investigated thoroughly,” Raffensperger tweeted June 14, adding that Fulton officials failed to follow state rules regarding the boxes.

  “This cannot continue.”

  Voyles said Raffensperger’s office is increasingly concerned about its pre-election decision to mollify demands by Democratic voter-rights group to make it easier to vote by absentee ballot.

  “They are investigating us to divert attention from their consent agreement with [Democratic activist] Stacey Abrams,” she said.

  “We never should have had any drop boxes. We wouldn’t have had chain-of-custody problems and the other problems with absentee ballots if they hadn’t put in those drop boxes,” Voyles added. “It was negligence.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 21:25

• At Least Three Fed Members Don't Think Inflation Is Just "Transitory"
  At Least Three Fed Members Don’t Think Inflation Is Just “Transitory”

  Even though Fed Chair Powell was quick to disabuse the Congressional kangaroo court today that the current bout of runaway inflation is anything but permanent, at least three FOMC members disagree, as Curvature’s repo guru Scott Skyrm observes today.

  Writing in his daily repo market commentary, Skyrm notes that two Fed governors saw the fed funds peak at 3.00% and one at 2.75% in the “dot plot” of the FOMC statement in the next tightening cycle.

  

  Conceding that he may be reading the “tea leaves” too much, Skyrm the notes that “that’s 50 basis points above the peak of 2.25% to 2.50% during the last cycle.” And while everyone knows that the “dot plot” is historically inaccurate and it’s a better indication of what the Fed governors are thinking at the time, Skyrm said that a peak fed funds rate at 3.00% does not corresponds with the current surge in inflation as being “temporary”… or corresponds with keeping rates are zero right now.

  The repo experts concludes that “if some Fed governors believe there will be more tightening than that last cycle, it either means they expect more inflation in the near future or there’s too much stimulus in the economy right now.”

  Translation: a mutiny is building within Powell’s “Transitory Inflation” Fed, and while just three uber-hawks have emerged so far, there is plenty of time until 2023 for Powell to experience a real insurrection, not the straight-to-CNN January 6 special produced by the FBI in and around the Capitol building.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 21:05

• Watch: US Patrol In Syria Blocked By Line Of Russian Commandos
  Watch: US Patrol In Syria Blocked By Line Of Russian Commandos

  Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

  Over the weekend, a US military patrol in northeastern Syria was blocked by the Russian military and forced to turn back to where they came from. The US reportedly violated existing security deals with Russia.

  Video of the brief encounter published by the Russian side shows the tense moment that Russian troops physically blocked the road while clutching their rifles:

  #Russian forces, ensuring safe movement of convoys along the M-4 near Tell-Tamr in #Hasakah province, #Syria, block the encroachment of a US #American patrol with four MaxxPro and Oshkosh M-ATV armored vehicles. From Rusvesna, 20 June 2021, story here: https://t.co/475iZEsNWL pic.twitter.com/LCTtMlggiq

  — tim anderson (@timand2037) June 20, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The US and Russia both have troops in reasonably close proximity in Syria, and the US tends to hype confrontations heavily. To try to reduce the number of issues, they’ve made several deals to coordinate their patrols and avoid running into one another.

  That works well, as far as it goes, but in this case the US didn’t inform Russia ahead of time, so when the Russian forces ran into them, they complained about the US ignoring protocol on prior notice.

  

  The US has not commented on why they ignored the protocol, but it’s not clear why they bother to patrol anyhow, since the US presence is very limited, a hold-over from President Trump’s plan to take Syria’s oil.
  

  Patrolling into adjoining Kurdish areas means the US retains some ties to the Kurds, but with Russia and Turkey also in the area, it’s a potentially complicated matter, especially if the US considers previous deals to be optional.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 20:45

• Russian Warships Practice Sinking Aircraft Carrier 35 Miles Off Hawaii Coast As US Places F22s On Standby
  Russian Warships Practice Sinking Aircraft Carrier 35 Miles Off Hawaii Coast As US Places F22s On Standby

  For weeks Russia has mustered a large fleet and aerial assets in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii in what’s been widely recognized as Russia’s largest Pacific military drills since the end of the Cold War. The Pentagon has closely monitored the somewhat unprecedented exercises which have seen at least 20 warships, submarines, fighter jets, and long-range bombers operating a mere 300 miles off Hawaii’s coast.

  But in a new alarming statement the US Navy is confirming that at one point Russian vessels and aircraft came a mere 35 miles off Hawaii’s coast as the massive war games were underway. While stressing that the foreign military assets stayed within international waters, spokesman for US Indo-Pacific Command Navy Capt. Mike Kafka, said, “At the closest point, some ships operated approximately 20 to 30 nautical miles (23 to 34 statute miles) off the coast of Hawaii,” he said. “We closely tracked all vessels.”

  

  New details of Russian maneuvers during the course of the exercises suggest there were multiple “close calls” – also as days ago the Pentagon scrambled F-22 stealth fighters, which remain on standby.

  The Russian side is now divulging that its military undertook mock attacks on a simulated aircraft carrier strike group.

  #OSINT #BMØ #Russia #USNavy #Pacific #Hawaii @USPacificFleet Large Russian navy taskforce just 35 Nautical Miles South of Honolulu Hawaii, 19-06-2021. Escorted by Three Arleigh Burke class Destroyers and a Sentinel class CoastGuard Cutter. pic.twitter.com/OBHE3iS3xb

  — OSINT-1 (@OSINT_1) June 20, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  First, as the Honolulu Star Advertiser has detailed, armed US fighters twice responded to the area amid a heightened state of alert over the Russian war games:

  The deployment of Russian “Bear” bombers as part of the exercise twice resulted in missile-armed Hawaii Air National Guard F-22 fighters scrambling to possibly intercept the turboprop planes — which headed in the direction of Hawaii but never came close, officials said.

  The report continues: “The Hawaii Air Guard stealth jets launched June 13 and again on Friday, but no intercepts were conducted with the Russian planes likely turning away from the path toward the state, according to an account of the launch.”

  

  And the hugely provocative details of the simulated carrier sinking put out by Russia’s defense ministry were detailed in The Drive as follows:

  The Russian Ministry of Defense today published an account about the Pacific Fleet maneuvers, which are described as having practiced “the tasks of destroying an aircraft carrier strike group of a mock enemy.” 

  A simulated cruise missile strike was carried out by the Pacific Fleet flagship, the Slava class cruiser Varyag (pictured above), as well as the Udaloy class destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov, and the Steregushchiy class corvettes Hero of the Russian Federation Aldar Tsydenzhapov, Gromky, and Sovershenniy.

  Russia’s defense ministry has lately issued multiple short official videos of its large force in action near Hawaii…

  Again, since the formal end of the exercises it’s emerging based on independent satellite image analysis that some of the Russian military assets were engaged in operations much closer to the United States’ sovereign territory than previously thought. 

  “Russia says that they are 300 miles off the coast of Hawaii, yet unconfirmed satellite images from June 19 appear to show them much closer – within 35 miles of the U.S. state,” The Daily Mail observes. The newest US Pacific-Command statement has since confirmed this proximity of at least some of the Russian assets.

  

  A number of Western pundits underscored that the large-scale Russian games were meant as a serious muscle-flexing “message” to President Biden just as he met with Vladimir Putin in Geneva last Wednesday. 

  Despite the US fighters being scrambled off Hawaii’s coast and remaining on stanby, Biden never publicly addressed the threat, though it’s unknown if he broached the issue with Putin directly in the closed-door talks.

  The U.S. scrambled three F-22 stealth fighter jets from Hawaii on Sunday in an unscheduled flight that may have been in response to the presence of a Russian Navy exercise https://t.co/qcFvmOAREK

  — Newsweek (@Newsweek) June 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  What’s more is that a Russian spy ship has remained in the regional waters near the US islands, according to Hawaiian news sources which detailed its presence Monday. 

  No doubt, US Pacific-Command forces are still on a high state of alert, monitoring for any remaining Russian military maneuvers in the area.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 20:45

• China-Backed Media Highly Critical Of Texas' New Permitless Carry Law
  China-Backed Media Highly Critical Of Texas’ New Permitless Carry Law

  Nearly a week after Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1927 that eliminates the requirement for Texas residents to obtain a license to carry a handgun, the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda news outlet, Xinhua, published a highly critical piece on how the permitless carry law (beginning on Sept.1) could return the Lone Star State to its “Wild West past, or even worse.”  

  The U.S. state of Texas may return to its Wild West past, or even worse, predicts an advocate for responsible gun ownership and opponent of the so-called permitless carry law signed by Governor Greg Abbott on Wednesday, which allows Texans to carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1.

  “There weren’t automatic weapons or 100-round magazine capacities in the guns 100 years ago,” said Gyl Switzer, director of Texas Gun Sense, a nonprofit group of more than 7,000 mostly gun owners who lobby for improved methods of gun control.

  The permitless carry law isn’t within Switzer’s ideas of ensuring responsible firearm safety, as indicated by Texas Gun Sense’s press release Wednesday within an hour of Abbott’s fulfillment of his promise to sign the Republican-backed legislation.

  “We are very concerned and disgusted that Governor Abbott has signed HB (House Bill) 1927 today while Texans are still fighting for their lives in Austin area hospitals from the most recent of Texas mass shootings,” the release stated. “(The bill) allows the permitless carry of handguns in public by people with no background check, no training in laws and safety and no demonstrated proficiency in shooting.” –Xinhua

  The Chinese government’s propaganda machine lashing out against the permitless carry law and siding with anti-gun Democrats is worrisome. 

  

  Xinhua didn’t even take the time to balance the article with what pro-gun groups had to say. The Chinese government and the communist party fear armed citizens. 

  Luckily, who cares what the Chinese government has to say because none of it matters as mainstream media fails to report the gun sanctuary moment is erupting across the country. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 20:25

• Late Stage Globalism: When Anything That Is Not Censored Is A Lie
  Late Stage Globalism: When Anything That Is Not Censored Is A Lie

  Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

  Late Stage Globalism Is A Tale of Narratives vs Networks

  Over the past few weeks in my weekly #AxisOfEasy newsletter I’ve been covering how Big Tech and the corporate media tried, unsuccessfully, to keep a lid on the Wuhan Lab origin narrative. At one point I half-joked “I’ll shut up about this when it’s safe to talk about Ivermectin”. This week, I did end up writing a piece about Ivermectin, namely how doctors can’t even mention it in their videos or podcast appearances without being penalized by social media platforms.

  Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist who has studied bats (from which COVID-19 purportedly originated) was recently on Triggernometry, the UK based podcast that my company, easyDNS, has been sponsoring since mid-2020. It turns out that neither Weinstein nor Triggernometry can say the word “Ivermectin” in their shows. If they do they’ll get an automatic takedown by YouTube and a strike on Facebook for violating community standards.

  Matt Taibbi recently posed the question “Why has ‘Ivermectin’ become a dirty word?” He cites Dr. Pierre Kory in his testimony to a US Senate Committee hearing on medical responses to COVID-19 in December 2020. Kory was referring to an existing medicine that was already FDA approved that he was describing as a “wonder drug” in treating COVID-19, that drug was Ivermectin.

  This Senate testimony was televised and viewed by approximately 8 million people. YouTube removed the video of this exchange. They later suspended the account of the United States senator who invited Dr. Kory to speak. (Kory also appeared on Brett Weinstein’s show and they took down that as well).

  Associated Press for their part “fact checked” the senate testimony, and because, in their words “there is no evidence that Ivermectin is a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID”, they labeled it as false:

  CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin “has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates” the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.

  AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

  First, I find it a little presumptuous for a wire service to be fact checking senate testimony. Isn’t the job of the committee holding the hearing largely that of fact-finding? Isn’t that the entire point? The ostensible role of the press should have been to simply report on what happened. What we got instead was an editorial wrapped in a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) that was passed off as some sort of objective truth.

  The coronavirus has accelerated the timelines on a lot of tectonic shifts that were already in motion. It’s pulled forward effects that would otherwise would have taken years or possibly even decades to play out. One of those dynamics is that the mainstream corporate press has self-immolated their own credibility in the eyes of their rapidly dwindling audience.

  Until now the masses seemed to be inculcated with the slow burn of endless propaganda and sermonizing from as far back as the days of Edward Bernays (who coined the word “propaganda”). Now with the pandemic and all this talk about a Great Reset and the New Normal because of a virus that was made more infectious in a Chinese lab funded by US technocrats, this is all beginning to look (in the immortal words of The New York Dolls) like “too much, too soon”.

  It may turn out that there is a saturation level of manufactured narrative that the public can be led to believe or tolerate and beyond that point it all begins to look like hyperreality. Not only do fewer people believe it anymore, more of them are done with even pretending to believe it.

  With too many things that were presented to us as truthful information over the last year turning out to be wrong, or a lie and almost everything that was dismissed as “already debunked conspiracy theory” turning out to have more substance, we may be crossing that point now.

  Mainstream media audiences are in secular decline.

  The biggest audiences to be found aren’t on CNN or MSNBC anymore, but most of the people still watching TV are watching FOX, mainly because Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham are calling b/s on nearly every establishment talking point.

  

  Via The Hill

  But I’m looking beyond that, outside of network TV. The hottest news outlets are fast becoming independent journalists like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, self-publishing via their Substack. That’s mainly email.

  Joe Rogan has a larger audience than Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon combined. So too does Steve Bannon, btw. The few times I’ve been on his Warroom I was astounded at the reach of his audience. According to company sources he’s doing between 2.5 and 3.5 million downloads per day. The last people I would ever expect to be tuning into Bannon are telling me “I saw you on Warroom”. (It’s mind-blowing).

  Zerohedge has more traffic than Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, The Atlantic and pretty well any of the other bluecheck day camps for aspiring establishment shills.

  It’s because of independent, renegade journalists and people writing outside of major outlets that these stories are starting go mainstream despite the best efforts of Big Tech, enforcing whatever canon the corporate press deems to be truth, or the establishment anointed “fact checkers” who try to step in whenever something looks to gain traction:

  The Wuhan lab origin was suspected for over a year (and the Fauci emails prove it). Zerohedge was on it almost immediately and got deplatformed for their troubles. It was finally pushed over the line in a Medium post by Nicholas Wade over a year later.

  Ivermectin may be next round and it looks like if it gets anywhere it will be thanks to people like Matt Taibbi and Bret Weinstein.

  What is the common thread here? It’s the power of decentralized networks and open source protocols vs narrative control that is promulgated from global governments, amplified by the corporate media, and enforced by technocratic platforms.

  

  This is why crypto currencies won’t die. This is why things like Signal, Telegram, Mastodon, Keybase are spreading like wildfire. This is why the best way to build an audience in this day and age is still email. Everything I wrote in my book on defending from cancel-culture and deplatform attacks is even more relevant today than when I released it last year (I made it available for free a few months later).

  It may seem like the censorship is absolute and that the narrative and the spin is overwhelming. But take solace that it only appears that way because the facade is breaking.

  As more people realize that the centralized technocratic system is failing, those who’s privilege and position are premised on it have to double down, triple down. They have to burn the boats.

  They’re fully committed now and because they have no other choice they have to overstep and overreach. Too much, too soon. Too late.

  *  *  *

  To receive future posts in your mailbox join the free Bombthrower mailing list, follow me on Twitter, or use the current weakness in cryptos to take advantage of my Crypto Capitalist Portfolio trial offer.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 20:05

• Here Are America's Top Ten Vacation Home Counties
  Here Are America’s Top Ten Vacation Home Counties

  A new report from the National Association of Realtors said the housing market is “hot in vacation home counties than nonvacation home counties.” 

  NAR’s 2021Vacation Home Counties Report examined more than 1,000 counties across the US using Multiple Listing Service data and found the top % vacation home counties in 2020. These counties are scattered across 16 states and met the criteria for being in the top 1%, including higher price, higher sales growth, and faster days on the market. 

  “North Carolina had four vacation counties (Swain, Alleghany, Macon, Watauga); there were three each in New York (Greene, Sullivan, Hamilton), Vermont (Windham, Bennington, Windsor), Massachusetts (Dukes, Barnstable, Nantucket), and Michigan (Oscoda, Alcona, Clare); there were two each in Florida (Lee, Collier), Missouri (Hickory, Camden), Maryland (Garrett, Worcester). Oklahoma, Maine, Arizona, New Jersey, Georgia, New Mexico, Delaware, and Minnesota each had one vacation home county that landed in the top 1% list,” NAR said. 

  

  “Vacation homes are a hot commodity at the moment,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist. “With many businesses and employers still extending an option to work remotely to workers, vacation housing and second homes will remain a popular choice among buyers.”

  Much of the boom has been fueled by the pandemic, as city-dwellers panic left cities for rural areas with scenic views or natural wonders. Also, mortgage rates at record lows unleashed a flurry of buyers while these homes were in short supply. 

  However, the monetary wizards at the Federal Reserve suggested last week that interest rate rises and tapering their massive balance sheet could occur sometime next year. This could derail not just the vacation home boom but the overall housing market.  

  Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Robert Kaplan played bad cop Monday morning as he suggested: “whether the housing market really needs the Fed’s support of $40 billion a month.” 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 19:45

• Trump Organization Sues New York City for Cancelling Golf Course Contract
  Trump Organization Sues New York City for Cancelling Golf Course Contract

  Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov via The Epoch Times,

  The Trump Organization filed a lawsuit against New York City on June 21, alleging that its contract to run a Bronx golf course was cancelled for political reasons.

  

  The lawsuit, filed in state court, argues that the contract between the city and the organization did not give New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio grounds to terminate it due to the actions of some of the president’s supporters during the Jan. 6 riot earlier this year.

  The lawsuit asks the court to let the Trump organization continue operating the course or pay millions to exit the deal.

  “Mayor de Blasio’s actions are purely politically motivated, have no legal merit, and are yet another example of the mayor’s efforts to advance his own partisan agenda and interfere with free enterprise,” the Trump Organization said in a statement.

  New York City said the company breached the terms of the contract and that it will “vigorously defend” its decision to terminate the deal.

  De Blasio announced the contract’s termination in January in the wake of the Capitol riot. He accused Trump of the “criminal action” of inciting the rioters. The U.S. Senate exonerated Trump of a similar charge during its second impeachment trial for the president.

  A number of banks and other businesses have refused to do future business with the Trump organization after the unrest on Jan. 6.

  New York has also pointed to a decision by the PGA of America to cancel a tournament that had been scheduled to be held at a Trump golf course in New Jersey.

  The city said that Trump could no longer argue that he can attract prestigious tournaments to Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point in the Bronx as is required in the contract.

  The Trump Organization argued in the lawsuit that the contract doesn’t require it to attract tournaments, only obliging it maintain a course that is “first-class, tournament quality.”

  It attached letters from course designers, golf organizations, and famous golfers, including top-ranked players Dustin Johnson and U.S. Open champion Bryson DeChambeau, saying that the course met that standard.

  The city has previously argued that the Trump Organization was being “overly restrictive” in its interpretation of the phrase “first-class, tournament quality,” saying it need only show that Trump is incapable of attracting tournaments for whatever reason.

  Under the contract terms, New York City can terminate its deal with the Trump Organization at any time without cause but would be obligated to compensate the company for the money it invested in building a clubhouse on the course.

  Trump’s son Eric, who lashed out at the city decision as a part of “cancel culture” earlier this year, has said the city and rate payers would be obligated to pay more than $30 million if the city withdraws, a figure cited again in the lawsuit.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 19:25

• US Losing 1.2 Million Workers To Early Retirement
  US Losing 1.2 Million Workers To Early Retirement

  According to a brand new analysis from Goldman’s economists, the US is on pace to experience a permanent loss of about 1.2 million workers from early retirement and reduced immigration. That’s the bad news; the good news – according to Goldman – is that younger workers who have been reluctant to return to the workforce are still likely to do so once temporary disincentives to work disappear (most later this year).  As a result, Goldman is looking for the labor force participation rate to rise by 100bps over the next year-plus to 62.6% (if still 0.8% below the 63.4% pre-pandemic rate).

  Why does this matter? Because while the labor market currently is a total shitshow due to Democrat policies that pay potential workers more to do nothing than to work, leading to a record 9.3 million job openings…

  

  … and as a result there is a historic labor shortage, this is expected to change in September when extended unemployment benefits run out. That’s why, consensus generally expects that the recovery in labor force participation will accelerate in the coming months as generous unemployment insurance benefits expire and other pandemic-related labor supply disincentives like school closures and health risk exposure fade away.

  But looking beyond the near term – 6 or so months from now – should we expect a full recovery in the labor supply? That’s what Goldman tries to answer in its latest economic note.

  The vampire squid starts off by reminding us that in December, it warned about a surge in early retirements that was likely to be a lingering drag on the labor force participation rate (LFPR). Since then, the number of excess retirees – defined as the difference between the actual number of retirees and the number of retirees implied by the age-specific retirement rates observed in 2019 – has soared to 1.2 million, a 0.5% hit to the labor force participation rate in addition to the roughly 0.2% structural drag from population aging since the pandemic began.

  

  Because most early retirements reflect permanent labor force exits, the labor force drag from early retirements will persist until it unwinds through fewer new retirements.

  Some more details:

  First, of the 2.7 million non-retiring workers who have left the labor force since the start of the pandemic (reflecting a 1.0% drag on the LFPR), 1.4 million say they don’t want a job now. However, many of these workers are aged 55+ (600k; a 0.2% drag) and are likely not working due to health concerns. In contrast, the share of prime-age and younger people who say they don’t want a job (a 0.3% drag) has increased only modestly and currently stands at mid-2019 levels (bottom chart, left).

  Second, among those workers who have left the labor force but still want a job (1.2 million; a 0.5% drag), most haven’t searched recently (over 900k; a 0.4pp drag), suggesting that they are postponing their job search until UI benefits expire and pandemic-related disincentives fall away (right chart, below). This, just in case there are still idiots who think that Biden’s generous claims aren’t behind the collapse in labor supply. The good news – for now – is that very few fall into the discouraged worker category that might indicate more persistent scarring and pose a threat to a full labor market recovery. This is of course intuitive: it is hard to imagine large numbers of workers dropping out in despair over a lack of job opportunities, as happened after the financial crisis, in an environment in which jobs are so abundant. Then again, this unstable equilibrium will flip soon enough once benefits run out and there is surge in labor supply and a sharp drop in wages.

  

  Looking beyond pandemic-driven changes in the labor force, Goldman sees scope for two tax policy changes to affect the labor supply of parents.

  • First, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) increased the Child Tax Credit (CTC), made it fully refundable, and removed its earned income-requirements for 2021 (chart below, left), and the upcoming fiscal package is expected to extend these changes through 2025. Prior academic research finds that the earned-income requirements of the CTC have had a significant impact on maternal labor supply, so removing these incentives could put downward pressure on female labor force participation. Although this effect will partially be offset by increased work incentives from the increased Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), earned income incentives will likely be reduced on net.
  • Second, the ARP also made the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) much more generous by allowing households to claim 50% of child care expenses up to $8k for one child and $16k for two or more children as a refundable tax credit (chart below, right). These changes could have large positive effects on maternal labor supply if they are extended beyond 2021.

  

  Here, Goldman says that its best guess is that the labor supply incentives from the CTC and CDCTC roughly offset each other, with some potential for a rotation in female labor supply from lower-income households (who should be most affected by the changes to the CTC) to middle-income households (who should benefit most from the changes to the CDCTC). However, there are some risks in both directions, depending on the details and permanence of each potential tax change.

  Overall, Goldman economists expect the Labor force participation rate to eventually rise from 61.6% now to a peak of 62.6% by the end of 2022, which however will still be 0.8% below the 63.4% pre-pandemic trend, with the gap in participation primarily reflecting early retirements and demographic shifts and other negative consequences resulting from Biden’s fiscal policies. It may also explain why there has been a concerted push to cut the work week from 5 to 4 days.

  In an amusing twist, Goldman “goes there” and writes that although immigration has only a small effect on the labor force participation rate (since it affects both the labor force and population), the bank expects the collapse in visa issuance during the pandemic (Exhibit 4) will reduce the labor force for the next few years. Quantified, GS economists expect that the drop in temporary worker visas currently is creating an effective labor force drag of 450k workers, although this hit will unwind through fewer expiring visas going forward. They also estimate that the drop in immigration visas has reduced the labor force by 300k through May, and since the loss in immigration in 2020 won’t be offset by higher immigration going forward, most of this drag will persist

  

  Finally, the next chart shows Goldman’s labor force forecast relative to the US demographic trend: here, Goldman continues to expect that most of the pandemic-driven exits will reverse in the coming months as pandemic- and policy-related obstacles to participation fade but that drags from early retirements and slower migration will keep the labor force over 1.2 million workers below trend by the end of 2022.

  How and when that transitions to a full-blown socialist state – which is the aim of most progressive democrats – where the government pays tens of millions not to work with the funding coming courtesy of the intellectual fraud that is MMT (Magic Money Tree), remains unclear although it will likely require an even bigger shock than the covid pandemic. War with China may just suffice.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Macron, Le Pen Suffer Setbacks In French Regional Elections Amid Lowest Turnout On Record
  Macron, Le Pen Suffer Setbacks In French Regional Elections Amid Lowest Turnout On Record

  French President Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen both suffered setbacks as their parties performed poorly in regional elections that saw a historically low turnout rate with more than two out of three note cast a vote.

  Macron’s La République En Marche won a paltry 10.9% of votes while the far-right National Rally, led by Le Pen, won 19.1% – both lower than expected – according to exit polls. The right-wing party Les Republicains fared better and won 29.3% of the vote. An unprecedentedly high rate, 68%, of the population didn’t vote. This is the highest abstention rate under the Fifth Republic.

  

  As Goldman economist notes Sven Jari Stehn writes, in line with expectations President Macron’s party posted another round of very disappointing results, often barely reaching the second round. The week until the second round on June 27 will now see parties negotiate to form the Front Républicain in an effort to block the far-right from reaching office. Polling suggests that this will be enough to defeat Le Pen’s party everywhere but in the Southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur, although her weak first round results will likely weigh on her momentum. Xavier Bertrand—who is trailing behind President Macron in polls for the presidential elections—looks set to win re-election in the Northern region of the Hauts-de-France with a comfortable margin, thus likely providing momentum to his presidential bid.

  Key Highlights via Goldman:

  According to preliminary results, incumbent parties and the far-right were in the lead after the regional elections’ first round. In the widely-watched race in the Southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur, far-right candidate Mariani was leading against the alliance between the centre-right and Macron’s presidential party by 2.5%. In the Northern region of the Hauts-de-France, 2022 presidential hopeful Xavier Bertrand (independent) won 42.1% of the vote, setting a 17.6% lead on far-right contender Sébastien Chenu. In other regions, incumbent parties – the center-right party Les Républicains and the Socialist party – looked broadly set for re-election.

  The voting method — two rounds, proportional with lists and majority bonus — requires parties’ lists to gather 10% of the votes in order to qualify to the second round (with lists having won between 5% and 10% of votes can merge with the qualified lists). Successful lists then contend for a simple majority in the second round, where the first list benefits from a 25% seat bonus in the regional council. This system allows for the so-called Front Républicain to operate, whereby mainstream parties either support or drop-out of the race to block the far-right from reaching office. The Southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur is the only region where polls give the far-right within polling error of beating a range of potential Front Républicains. Another key parameter of the second round will be voter turnout, which reached a record low at 33.9% in this first round. Although covid and reopening likely weighed on the participation rate this particular weekend, the downward trend of the past decades could also be reflected in the second round through a weakened Front Républicain.

  It is difficult to map these results into the race for the 2022 presidential elections. In that respect, the presidential party’s disappointing results can be traced back to his party’s lack of local rooting. Meanwhile, the far-right’s performance looks especially mixed, as Le Pen’s party both got closer to office than ever in the South, but lost ground almost uniformally in other regions.

  

  As a result, Goldman concludes that the center-right – Les Républicains, currently third in polls for 2022 – looks to emerge as the winner of these elections, with three of its leaders winning large victories.

  The race to the 2022 presidential election could thus slightly narrow once the dust settles on this regional ballot.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 02:45

• Turkey's Secret Plan To Invade Greece And Armenia
  Turkey’s Secret Plan To Invade Greece And Armenia

  Via SouthFront.org,

  A plan for a simultaneous Turkish invasion of both Greece and Armenia was prepared by Turkey, according to the secret documents of the Turkish General Staff.

  

  According to these documents, the plan called “CERBE” was prepared in 2014 and updated in 2016.

  According to the Nordic Monitor, “Turkey was inspired by the name of its secret war plans for the eastern Mediterranean, from a significant victory Ottoman naval machine against a fleet of Christian alliance that strengthened Turkish rule in the Mediterranean.”

  

  

  

  According to a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the General Staff for a review of interior design, Turkey has drawn up a plan for a secret military operation called “TSK [Turkish Armed Forces] Cerbe Operation Planning Directive”. The plan was dated January 7, 2014, which means that it was probably updated amid increased tension between Turkey and Greece / Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean, the report also states. Cerbe is the name of an island in southern Tunisia near the border with Libya.

  It was there that the Battle of Djerba took place in May 1560 between the Ottoman forces and the fleet of the Christian Alliance, which consisted mainly of Spanish, Papal, Genoese, Maltese and Neapolitan forces.

  “The Turks won the battle, which gave them dominance in the Mediterranean Sea,” the report said, adding that “the name of Turkey’s comprehensive war game plan in the eastern Mediterranean fits in with the narrative promoted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan” and his associates, who often place Turkey’s problems with its Western allies as part of a renewed conflict between Christian Europe and Muslim Turkey. A slide from the powerpoint from the secret document lists the military plans of Turkey against Greece, Armenia and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean with corresponding dates that show when they were drawn up“.

  

  

  

  

  “The existence of Turkey’s war plan for the east was discovered in a court file in the Turkish capital, with prosecutor Serdar Coşkun, loyal to the Turkish president, apparently forgetting to remove the classified documents before submitting them to the court,” the statement said, which continues: “They were collected from the headquarters of the General Staff during an investigation into the failed coup on 15 July 2016. The documents, including the plan to invade Greece and Armenia, were found to have been sent among the top commanders to the General Staff through a secure internal email.

  Koskun ordered the army to forward copies of all emails for the previous two months, including the encrypted ones, on August 1, 2016. Ten days later, on August 11, 2016, the prosecutor instructed his trusted assistant, a police officer named Yüksel Var, collect emails from the General Staff’s internal servers and report to him. A panel set up by military technicians under Var completed its work on 14 February 2017. Finally, the indictment filed by prosecutors Necip Cem İşçimen, Kemal Aksakal and İstiklal Akkaya in March 2017 at the 17th Supreme Criminal Court of the All of Ankara the e-mails collected from the computers of the General Staff“.

  The Nordic Monitor concludes: “No communication was found in the e-mails indicating any  coup attempt, which many believe was a disorientation operation organized by Erdogan and his intelligence and military leaders to trap the opposition to persecution and mass purges.

  The document does not contain details about the specifics of the program other than its name and updated date. The details of the war plan must have been labeled “confidential” and therefore could not be communicated through the intranet system running on the Turkish army’s email exchange servers. A review of the documents also shows that the General Staff, which notified the emails at the outset, panicked eight months later about the possible impact of the disclosure of sensitive documents and began sounding the alarm. The first warning letter was written on March 8, 2017 by the Chief of General Staff Unur Tarçın, Head of the Communication, Electronic and Information Services System of the General Staff (Muhabere, Elektronik ve Bilgi Sistemleri, or MEBS).

  He warned the General Staff Legal Service that the documents contained secret documents related to Turkey’s national security, classified intelligence reports and operations in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean. He said the documents should be kept secret and not disclosed to unauthorized persons. The Deputy Chief Legal Adviser of the General Staff, Colonel Aydın Seviş, then wrote to the 17th Ankara High Criminal Court on 24 August 2017, reiterating the same concerns about the secret documents and urging the establishment of a committee to review them. However, the Turkish prosecutors did not seem to pay attention to their concerns and included all the emails with the attached secret documents in the case file, revealing the highly classified information including the name of the invasion plan for Greece”.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/22/2021 – 02:00

• When the FBI Framed Four Innocent Men
  When the FBI Framed Four Innocent Men

  Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

  This is the story of how the FBI framed four innocent men for murder, destroyed families, and tried to cover it up. It’s also the story of the convergence of John Durham and Robert Mueller: how Durham uncovered the FBI’s crimes and how Robert Mueller’s FBI disputed the innocence of the men the FBI framed.

  

  The FBI knocked and Mike Albano opened the door. It was 1983. As a member of the Massachusetts State Parole Board, Albano thought he had been doing his job when he looked into voting to commute the sentence of Peter Limone, who along with Joseph Salvati, Henry Tameleo, and Louis Greco, had been convicted for the murder of Teddy Deegan in 1965.

  Those convictions never sat right with Albano – he was savvy to Massachusetts and the convergence of the Mob and law enforcement. His suspicions of the convictions, and sympathy to the four men, only grew when he met with Greco, who proclaimed his innocence and said “he wanted to live one day as a free man, just one day.”1

  FBI special agents John Morris and John Connolly weren’t there just say hello or to discuss the details of the case (a state case, not a federal case). There was a darker purpose: straight-up intimidation. Threats that it wouldn’t be good for Albano’s career if he voted for commutation.

  To Albano’s credit, he voted to commute the sentence of Limone. This particular petition for commutation (Limone filed six in total that were all rejected) was denied by Governor Michael Dukakis after the FBI and then-U.S. Attorney Bill Weld put on the pressure, alleging that Limone was guilty of the Deegan murder, had been involved in commissioning the murder of Joseph “The Animal” Barboza, and would return with seniority to Boston’s organized crime structure if he was freed.

  The Parole Board also voted in favor of two commutation petitions by Greco. The first was denied by Governor Michael Dukakis, the second denied by Governor Bill Weld. There was no ruling on the third commutation petition filed by Greco in 1995. He died soon after it was filed. Greco’s plea to Albano, that he live “just one day” as a free man, was never granted.

  To understand this case and the FBI’s efforts to intimidate Albano, you have to go back to the 1960s. J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director and made it a focus of his to take down La Cosa Nostra – the Italian Mob – by any means necessary. To achieve this goal the FBI used criminal informants.

  The Teddy Deegan Murder

  Teddy Deegan was murdered on the night of March 12, 1965 in Chelsea, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. His body was found in an alley behind the Lincoln National Bank. He had on gloves and a screwdriver was found near his left hand. A tool of his trade. The lieutenant who arrived at the scene described a fresh pool of blood near his left knee and blood “still oozing from the rear of his head.” In all, Deegan was shot 6 times with three different guns.

  

  The officers who recognized Deegan there lying in the alley wouldn’t have been surprised. Deegan didn’t hang around the best people and didn’t exactly behave himself. They didn’t expect Deegan’s murder, but they wouldn’t have been surprised.

  Arrests are made.

  Four men – Limone, Greco, Salvati, and Tameleo – were accused of Deegan’s murder.

  Peter Limone was arrested on October 27, 1967. It was his tenth wedding anniversary and it was spent in jail away from his wife, Olympia, with whom he had four young children. He was supposed to meet Olymia that evening for a meeting at their sons’ school. He never showed up.

  Louis Greco surrendered to the FBI in Miami, having been in Florida at the time of the murder, and was extradited to Massachusetts in 1968. He too was married and had a couple young children. He was a war hero, having served in the South Pacific in the Army during World War II. For his service he had been awarded a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars. He returned from the war “disabled for life with a shattered ankle.”

  Joseph Salvati was 34 when he was arrested. Like Limone, he also had four young children. Henry Tameleo was the oldest of the four men. He was born in 1901 and had been married to his wife since 1919.

  The Trial and Convictions

  The state murder trial started on May 27, 1968. Joseph Barboza, an FBI informant, testified that Limone and Tameleo approved the “hit” on Deegan, that Salvati was there with them, and that Greco helped plan the killing.

  Not that Barboza was innocent – he was indicted for a misdemeanor relating to the murder and was serving time for possessing an illegal firearm. This was supposedly part of a deal the FBI gave Barboza: testify for the Massachusetts government in the murder trial and they’d let the judge know the extent and materiality of his assistance.

  Anthony Stathopoulos, Jr. had also been at the scene and testified Greco – or a man who looked like Greco – wanted to get him as well. Other witnesses testified to guilt-indicating conduct by the defendants. For example, it was alleged that Tameleo and Greco tried to bribe Barboza and Stathopoulos to change their testimony.

  The defense had an uphill battle. Their lawyers suspected that the FBI might have information or documents relating to the witnesses or Deegan’s murder. But the FBI produced nothing.

  The jury reached its verdict on July 31, 1968. The four men were found guilty: Greco for murder in the first degree, Limone and Tameleo for accessories before the fact, Salvati for being an accessory after the fact, and all them for conspiracy to murder Deegan and Stathopoulos.

  Limone, Tameleo, and Greco received the death penalty. Salvati was sentenced to life.2 The convictions were brought to the attention of Director Hoover, with the Boston office sending memos citing the Suffolk County District Attorney’s comments that the prosecution was a “direct result of FBI investigation” and witness development.

  The FBI agents involved in the case (and who testified in support of their witness) were recommended awards and letters of commendation. They later received large bonuses and were praised by Director Hoover.

  The Families

  The families of the four men were devastated by the news. They had been distraught since the arrests – but at least with a trial they had hope things would work out in their favor. Now hope was gone and their husbands, their fathers, were facing execution.

  It was hard for the wives but the children had it worse. The taunts at school that their father was a murderer. Going through cold prison gates and being frisked just to spend their birthdays with their father. An empty seat at sporting events and recitals. A boy’s nightmares of his father’s electrocution. A girl’s anxiety of missing her dad.

  Henry Tameleo was the oldest of the four (aged 66 at the time of imprisonment) and his health was rapidly failing. The prison board and his doctors recommended he be transferred due to his health – these requests were ignored for years. He remained in prison a “sick, lonely old man” struggling with depression. His wife died in 1979. They had been married approximately 60 years; the last 10 years spent apart. He wasn’t there to hold her hand as she passed.

  As bad as all of that is – and it is bad – the Greco family took it the worst. I’m not sure there are words to describe the trauma they endured. Greco and his wife Roberta had two sons (Eddie and Louis Jr.) who were 10 and 12, respectively, when their father was taken away. After Greco’s conviction, his son Eddie – at just 10 years old – contemplated suicide. In his own words, he wanted to “take a plastic bag and kill myself. . . I was putting plastic bags around my head.”

  The boys’ mother Roberta stopped cooking and cleaning, and took up drinking and beating the kids. Eddie would go to school hungry. One day in 1970 Eddie came home to find their mother had abandoned them. They lived with family until they were thrown out of that home. Eddie was 13 and Louis Jr. was 15 when they were put out on their own.

  Greco’s health suffered the same fate as his family on the outside: deterioration. While Greco (and the other two defendants put on death row) was spared execution due to the termination of the death penalty in Massachusetts, he had always been sentenced to death – it was just a matter of time. His health began failing and he was ultimately unable to do most anything without assistance. He lost control of his bowels and Salvati helped clean up after him. Greco’s right leg was amputated below the knee in 1995 de to gangrene. He died in prison on December 30, 1995.

  Approximately two years later his son and namesake, Louis Jr., committed suicide by drinking a can of Drano. His other son Eddie struggled with cocaine and heroin addiction. He would eventually die from a likely overdose.

  What the FBI knew.

  There were FBI secrets about these convictions for 30+ years. These secrets went all the way up to FBI Director Hoover, and were uncovered in late 2000 by then-Assistant US Attorney John Durham: that the FBI had framed four innocent men for murder. This set-up was “known to, supported by, encouraged, and facilitated by the FBI hierarchy all the way up to the FBI Director.”3

  To understand the FBI conspiracy, we have to go back to the 1960s and FBI Director Hoover’s efforts to take down La Cosa Nostra- the Italian Mob – by any means necessary.

  Part of that task involved focusing on Raymond Patriarca, a powerful New England organized crime boss. In 1962, the FBI installed a wire in Patriarca’s Providence, New England office without a warrant. The conversations were monitored and forwarded to agents in the FBI’s Boston office. This was kept secret even within the FBI. Per Judge Gertner, “FBI reports describing conversations on the wire referred to it as if it were a human source, an informant just like any other.”

  The FBI also made use of informants, with whom their agents were have a secret and long-term relationship. Enter Jimmy Flemmi, a career criminal and top FBI informant. The FBI had known of Flemmi’s criminal history – and knew that Flemmi had been involved in a number of murders. Condon, one of the agents handling Flemmi, had been informed in 1964 and early 1965 that Flemmi had committed several murders. This didn’t matter to FBI Agent Dennis Condon, his Boston FBI supervisor, or even to Director Hoover. He could get close to Patriarca and other mob figures and, therefore, had potential.

  Jimmy Flemmi was eventually closed as an informant in the fall of 1965. His brother, Stephen Flemmi, began informing for the FBI not long after. Like Jimmy, Stephen was a career criminal, gangster, and killer.

  The FBI’s Knowledge of the Plot to Kill Deegan

  The wires and informants against Patricia were well underway by 1965. In October 1964, the FBI learned on two occasions that Jimmy Flemmi wanted to kill Deegan. Director Hoover had been updated on these developments.4

  Five months later, in early March 1965, Jimmy Flemmi met with Patriarca and asked for permission to execute Deegan. A couple days later Flemmi returned with Joseph Barboza and asked for the “OK” to kill him. Flemmi thought Deegan was “an arrogant, nasty sneak and should be killed.”5

  Two days prior to Deegan’s murder, on March 10, 1965, an informant advised the FBI that Raymond Patriarca, a powerful New England organized crime boss, had ordered a “hit” on Deegan. They had already completed a dry run and “a close associate of Deegan’s has agreed to set him up.” The FBI knew it was coming.

  

  Deegan was executed on March 12, 1965. This was the same day that one of his killers, Jimmy Flemmi, was assigned to be developed as an informant.6

  The FBI’s Knowledge

  The FBI never doubted who killed Teddy Deegan. The day after the murder, an FBI informant reported that Jimmy Flemmi confessed to the killing along with Roy French, Joseph Romeo Martin, Ronnie Cassesso, and Joseph Barboza. Approximately three months later, Director Hoover was informed that Flemmi had participated in the murder. 

  The FBI was able to put together exactly how the murder was supposed to go down. After the hit was approved by Patriarca, the men planned to kill Deegan when he and an associate (who was also to be killed) were robbing a place in Chelsea. French was to tip the killers off to the time and location.

  Deegan’s death had the criminal world talking. On March 13, 1965 (the day after the murder), a top FBI informant reported that Jimmy Flemmi confessed to murder along with French, Romeo, Martin, Cassesso, and Barboza.

  “That account would be repeated over and over with minor variations in every single document the FBI had” before Barboza started cooperating.7 Other accounts supported that theory of the Deegan murder. For example, the Chelsea police had information that the men had been seen leaving a restaurant together at approximately 9 p.m. and returning 45 minutes later.  Other informants came forward. Eleven days after Deegan’s murder, on March 23, 1965, it was reported to the FBI that Barboza admitted to the killing. The memo below shows that Director Hoover was informed that the FBI’s own informants had murdered Deegan.

  

  This information wasn’t shared with state authorities or the defense counsel of the accused. As a result, this really became a criminal conspiracy by the FBI hierarchy – all the way up to Director Hoover.

  Durham Starts the Bulger Review

  In 1995, information of Whitey Bulger’s relationship with corrupt FBI agents became public, leading to an investigation of the FBI’s Boston field office. This included a review of documents relating to Limone’s case.

  In late 2000, then-Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham uncovered FBI memos from the 1960s detailing FBI misconduct in this case, providing them to the DOJ, US Attorney’s Office, the defendants and state prosecutors, and the FBI. As a result, “the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office immediately filed a motion to vacate Limone’s conviction, to grant Limone a new trial, and admit him to bail.

  Judge Margaret Hinkle of Suffolk Superior Court ruled that the Durham documents were material, exculpatory, and cast ‘real doubt’ on the justice of Limone’s convictions.”8 The state cases against Salvati and Limone – the only two still alive – were dropped. (Greco and Tameleo had died in prison; their cases were posthumously dropped.)

  Mueller

  Once Durham uncovered these documents, the Massachusetts Pardon Board reached out to FBI Director Mueller, asking about the FBI’s official response to the exculpatory evidence. The Boston Field Office provided a shameful response that the new evidence of an FBI set-up did not mean that the men were “innocent – it merely means that they are entitled to a new trial.”

  

  The Lawsuit and Aftermath

  Eventually, the surviving men and their families, along with the families of the deceased Greco and Tameleo, filed suit against the FBI. Not only did the FBI refuse to admit the truth – that these men were innocent – but the FBI also obstructed their civil rights trial. It turned out that the FBI had been hiding evidence from their own lawyers. This caused Judge Gertner to order that “this matter be brought to the personal attention of the Director of the FBI [Robert Mueller].”

  After a bench trial, Judge Gertner concluded this case was “about intentional misconduct, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, the framing of four innocent men.” She awarded the men and their families over $100 million in damages.

  For the wrongly convicted and their families, this would never be enough.

  Meanwhile, the FBI headquarters is still called the J. Edgar Hoover F.B.I. Building. Mueller enjoys, at least with some, a good reputation despite his small but significant part in this saga. And Durham – now Special Counsel – still quietly looks for the truth.

  *  *  *

  1. In this essay, the Author relies in large part on Judge Nancy Gertner’s July 26, 2007 Memorandum and Order in civil action no. 02cv10890, Peter J. Limone, et al., v. United States of America, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

  2. Barboza pled guilty to conspiracy and had his unrelated charges dismissed. He was sentenced to a year and a day to be served concurrently with the other time he was doing.

  3. Gertner Memo.

  4. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fbi2.pdf

  5. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fbi2.pdf

  6. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fbi2.pdf

  7. Gertner Memo at 49.

  8. Gertner Memo at 12.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 23:40

• Thermostats In Texas Homes Are Being Accessed Remotely And Turned Up Due To An Energy Shortage
  Thermostats In Texas Homes Are Being Accessed Remotely And Turned Up Due To An Energy Shortage

  Have a smart thermostat at home? Better keep an eye on it – especially if you live in Texas.

  That’s because some residents of the Lone Star state have been claiming that someone has been turning up the temperatures at their homes, remotely, at the same time the state is undergoing an energy shortage. 

  And while the Electric Reliability Council of Texas has asked Texans to turn up the temperatures at their homes to help deal with the shortage, some residents are claiming it’s being done for them. 

  Deer Park resident Brandon English told KHOU: “(My wife) had it cranked it down at 2:30. It takes a long time for this house to get cool when it gets that hot. They’d been asleep long enough that the house had already gotten to 78 degrees. So they woke up sweating.”

  His wife received an alert on her phone shortly thereafter saying their thermostat had been changed remotely due to an “energy saving event”. 

  

  “Was my daughter at the point of overheating? She’s 3 months old. They dehydrate very quickly,” English said. And according to KHOU, the English’s house isn’t the only place where such “adjustments” can take place:

  The family’s smart thermostat was installed a few years ago as part of a new home security package. Many smart thermostats can be enrolled in a program called “Smart Savers Texas.” It’s operated by a company called EnergyHub.

  The agreement states that in exchange for an entry into sweepstakes, electric customers allow them to control their thermostats during periods of high energy demand. EnergyHub’s list of its clients include TXU Energy, CenterPoint and ERCOT.

  “I wouldn’t want anybody else controlling my things for me,” English said. He said he unenrolled the home’s thermostat as soon as he found out. “If somebody else can manipulate this, I’m not for it,” he said.

  Similar complaints on a Houston Reddit board showed that English wasn’t the only person who had the issue. “Several others” said their thermostats were also accessed and turned up. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 23:20

• Biden Urged To Replace Harris On Border Assignment In Letter Signed by 56 Republicans
  Biden Urged To Replace Harris On Border Assignment In Letter Signed by 56 Republicans

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  More than 50 House GOP lawmakers called on President Joe Biden to relieve Vice President Kamala Harris of her duties in handling the U.S.–Mexico border crisis.

  

  The Republicans, as they have done for months, noted that Harris hasn’t yet visited the border amid a surge in illegal immigration. Some Democratic lawmakers who represent areas along the border have also called on the vice president to take more action, including a visit to the area.

  Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) and 55 other Republicans in the House demanded Harris’s removal from her border assignment, citing recent Customs and Border Protection data that shows that 180,000 people were apprehended last month after crossing the border illegally.

  “Despite being in the midst of a border crisis this country has not seen in two decades, Vice President Harris has not yet shown adequate interest in observing this crisis first-hand,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “In the 85 days since the Vice President has been tasked with solving this crisis, she has yet to visit the border and meet with Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, and local law enforcement officials.”

  Harris has defended not going to the border and said she will visit the border sometime in the future.

  When she visited Mexico and Guatemala this month, Harris said that the “root causes” of the illegal immigration problem should be addressed. However, her explanation to reporters in Mexico about why she hasn’t visited the border yet overshadowed her trip, saying that the White House is aiming to boost economic development in the region.

  She told reporters: “It would be very easy to say, ‘We’ll travel to one place, and therefore it’s solved.’ I don’t think anybody thinks that that would be the solution.” When pressed about visiting the border again, Harris said she did so when she was a senator from California.

  Harris has also said that their mission primarily is diplomatic work focused on the “Northern Triangle” countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, as well as Mexico.

  During a testy exchange last week between Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Mayorkas said that questions about Harris not having visited the border are “quite unfair and disrespectful.” Norman was one of the signatories of the letter asking Biden to relieve Harris of her duties.

  Mayorkas said, “Let me be very clear, the president and the vice president have requested and directed me to visit the border, which I have done on multiple occasions.”

  Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) has become possibly the most vocal Democrat in the House about the border crisis. Last week, he wrote a letter to the vice president requesting she meet with him and visit the border, but he later told Fox News that he hasn’t heard back from her office.

  “I encourage you to join me and other Members of Congress, while we visit with the people on the ground who deal with these issues every day,” Cuellar wrote. “I believe it is critical that you meet with local stakeholders and residents, consider their concerns, and use their lived experiences to implement more effective policies.”

  Meanwhile, as Tom Ozimek also notes:

  A dozen Republican senators have demanded the immediate release of a Biden administration blueprint for expanding and overhauling the immigration system, according to a draft document obtained by selected media but not yet disclosed to Congress or the general public.

  In a joint letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (pdf), the senators demand the release of a 46-page draft called the “DHS Plan to Restore Trust in Our Legal Immigration System,” which was first reported by The New York Times and which reportedly maps out the Biden administration’s plans for significant expansion of the immigration system.

  According to The New York Times, the blueprint “lists scores of initiatives intended to reopen the country to more immigrants,” while not just rolling back some Trump-era policies but also “addressing backlogs and delays that plagued prior presidents.” Most of the document’s policy proposals could not be implemented by executive authority, but would require a broader overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, according to the report.

  In the letter, the GOP lawmakers allege that the blueprint “is being withheld from Congress and the American people,” which they find “particularly troubling given the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”

  

  Since Biden took office, there has been a historic surge in illegal immigration, a situation Republicans have characterized as a “crisis” fueled by the the president’s policies. Biden administration officials have disputed that characterization, including Mayorkas, who in recent Senate testimony insisted on using the term “challenge” to describe the problem while insisting that the administration has a strategy to cope with it.

  But the senators expressed concern that some of the policies the blueprint reportedly contains would serve to exacerbate the problem by accelerating the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.

  “We are deeply concerned that these policies will act as a pull factor to continue drawing illegal immigrants to the country—much like the policies already being implemented by the Biden Administration,” they wrote.

  The Epoch Times has reached out to the DHS with a request for comment on the GOP letter and seeking clarification on the timeline for the document’s release to the public.

  The lawmakers also objected to what they characterized as President Joe Biden’s plans to “use and abuse executive authority to reshape our immigration system.”

  “In addition, the policies allegedly proposed in this document would open up new ways for immigrants to enter the country legally that extend well beyond the plain text and meaning of the law,” they wrote. “While there are many rational suggestions for reform in this document, these are decisions that must be made by Congress, and Congress alone, and not by the stroke of the President’s pen,” they added.

  “A decision with such serious public safety consequences should be open and accessible, but instead, DHS has kept this information from everyone except a media ally,” the senators wrote.

  The letter was signed by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).

  Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 23:00

• Pakistan PM Slams Door On Allowing CIA Bases For Afghan Operations
  Pakistan PM Slams Door On Allowing CIA Bases For Afghan Operations

  In a new high level interview given to Axios’ Jonathan Swan, Pakistani Premier Imran Khan issued a blunt message to Washington as it struggles with the deteriorating security situation amid the Afghan draw down, which Biden has vowed to accomplish before Sept.11. 

  Khan has definitively ruled out allowing the United States to set up CIA bases on Pakistani soil to conduct cross-border operations. “Will you allow the American government to have CIA here in Pakistan to conduct cross-border counterterrorism missions against Al-Qaeda, ISIS or the Taliban?” Swan asked the longtime Pakistani leader in the interview first published days ago.

  “Absolutely not. There’s no way we’re going to allow it,” Khan said, before repeating resolutely, “Absolutely not.”

  Earlier this month, US intelligence and defense officials acknowledged they are in a “last-minute” scramble to find regional bases to operate from – for example to conduct drone operations – after the Pentagon fully exits by the upcoming Fall per the White House’s timeline.

  Driving these efforts are not only fears that the Taliban could quickly take Kabul in the days and weeks after Western forces exit the country, but according to Axios, it’s to prevent increased Russian influence in Central Asia: “The Biden administration also is exploring options in Central Asia to maintain intelligence on terrorist networks inside Afghanistan, but that is complicated for a different reason: Those countries are in Vladimir Putin’s sphere of influence,” the report states.

  Throughout much of the two decade long US war in Afghanistan, Pakistan has served as a crucial base of US counterterror operations; however during Khan’s 2018 election as prime minister, he vowed to “never again” allow US intelligence or special forces such a role on Pakistani soil.

  Swan writes that, “Close observers say it would be political suicide for Khan to embrace the presence of the CIA or special forces on Pakistani soil.”

  

  Assuming that any kind of near future deal with US intelligence is ever actually reached, for the above reasons the public will certainly never know about it.

  Historically, especially into the 1980’s, Pakistan has been host of major and far-reaching US intelligence campaigns in Central Asia – so despite Khan’s public denials of entertaining the possibility of an agreement for covert ops being reach – it always remains a a distinct possibility. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 22:40

• New Study Links Ivermectin To "Large Reductions" In COVID-19 Deaths
  New Study Links Ivermectin To “Large Reductions” In COVID-19 Deaths

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A recent pre-print review based on peer-reviewed studies has found that using antiparasitic drug ivermectin could lead to “large reductions” in COVID-19 deaths and its use could have a “significant impact” on the pandemic globally.

  

  For the study (pdf), published on June 17 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a group of scientists reviewed the clinical trial use of ivermectin, which has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, in 24 randomized controlled trials involving just over 3,400 participants. The researchers sought to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection or mortality in people with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it.

  Using multiple methods of sequential analysis, the researchers concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.79, in a sample of 2438 patients.

  Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who were not, according to the review.

  “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease,” the authors wrote.

  

  Since the start of the pandemic, both observational and randomized studies have evaluated ivermectin as a treatment for, and as prevention against, COVID-19 infection.

  “A review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin ‘demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy’ against COVID-19” the researchers wrote, referring to one recent review, which was based on data from both peer-reviewed studies and preprint manuscripts.

  They cited another recent review that concluded that ivermectin reduced deaths by as much as 75 percent, while noting that neither the National Institutes of Health in the United States nor the World Health Organization (WHO) have recommended the use of ivermectin outside clinical trials for use in the fight against COVID-19.

  [ZH: Meanwhile in India]

  

  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in a note on “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” warns that it has received “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.”

  “Using any treatment for COVID-19 that’s not approved or authorized by the FDA, unless part of a clinical trial, can cause serious harm,” the FDA said in the note, adding that it has not reviewed data to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients.

  The WHO said in March that “the current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive” and that, until more data becomes available, the agency recommends that “the drug only be used within clinical trials.”

  The authors of the ivermectin efficacy study argued, however, that the drug has an “established safety profile through decades of use” and “could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV2 pandemic.”

  “The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally,” they argued in the study abstract.

  The authors noted in their publication that all the studies on which they based their conclusions have been peer-reviewed.

  Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 22:20

• China Crackdown On Bitcoin Sends Retail Graphics-Card Prices Lower Despite Ongoing Scalping
  China Crackdown On Bitcoin Sends Retail Graphics-Card Prices Lower Despite Ongoing Scalping

  Bitcoin, Ether, and most other crypto tokens tumbled to their lowest levels in more than a week Monday morning amid a continued crackdown on cryptocurrency miners by China, as the PBOC, China’s central bank, requested a meeting with Alipay and several local banks over providing services to crypto traders.

  As of 1400 ET, BTC was trading around $32,292, a plunge of more than 9% over the past 24 hours and a halving since its all-time high of nearly $65,000 in mid-April.

  

  The continuing crackdown on crypto and mining in China has sent shockwaves worldwide – most of them are bad for the crypto community as miners may have to relocate. But there may be a near-term silver lining, as the most critical component in mining operations, graphics cards, saw prices plunge from record highs – at least for those fortunate enough to score one from retailers at MSRP.

  According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP), retail prices for various Nvidia cards used by miners have been falling. For example, Nvidia Quadro P1000 model graphics cards were going for 2,429 yuan (US$376), down from 3,000 yuan ($464) in early May, before China started cracking down on crypto mining. 

  A more popular card for miners, the Asus RTX3060, was down 4,699 yuan ($726) from its peak of 13,499 yuan ($2087) on JD.com. 

  

  All price changes above were tracked by e-commerce firm Manmanbuy. 

  That said, whether the current dip in retail prices will translate to actual availability – particularly in the US, where scalpers use automated scrapers to identify and snap up cards as they become available and flip them on Ebay and other forums for huge premiums – has yet to be seen. Meanwhile, NVidia CEO Jensen Huang has warned that RTX 3XXX series cards will be difficult to buy through the end of the year. So until the silicon shortage is remedied, and Ethereum jumps from POW (mining with GPUs) to POS (not mining with GPUs), demand for Nvidia GPUs is unlikely to abate – allowing scalpers to keep doing their thing.

  A graphics card mining rig is a special computer put together for the sole purpose of mining cryptocurrencies. 

  Graphics Card Prices in 🇩🇪🇦🇹 June 20, 2021

  AMD: No major changes.

  nVidia: Availability goes up greatly. Prices go down again, from average +133% best price over MSRP (end of May) to now +91%.

  Still a long way to go.https://t.co/qstKFcg8ls pic.twitter.com/obcyAM7D5Z

  — 3DCenter.org (@3DCenter_org) June 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  We noted earlier that authorities in the Chinese city of Ya’an had promised to root out all bitcoin and ether mining operations in the area – known for its cheap hydroelectric power – in the coming months.

   … and couple this with PBOC’s statements about Alipay, ICBC, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Postal Savings Bank of China, and Industrial Bank over providing services to virtual currency trading – the makings of a reversal in graphics card prices seems to be underway. 

  But keep in mind, prices are still sky-high from a pre-COVID level as the ability to procure high-end graphics cards has become more challenging due to supply chain disruptions.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 22:00

• The Biden 'No-Go' Zones
  The Biden ‘No-Go’ Zones

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,

  The Democratic Party won the long march through journalism, but this Pyrrhic victory has meant the destruction of every principle of journalistic integrity liberals ever claimed to champion…

  

  In American journalism, there are supposed to be some clear, nonnegotiable third-rails. 

  One is zero tolerance for overtly racist language and comportment among our movers and shakers. Reporters, for example, for four years damned Donald Trump for his neutralizing summation that there were both “fine people” and extremists mingled among the hordes of protestors during their occasionally violent encounters in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

  It mattered little to the media that Trump added qualifiers of “many” and “both” sides of the protests: 

  We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides . . . And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally—but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? . . . Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats—you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.

  Selected words from the above quote were recycled ad nauseam as proof Trump was a racist. 

  Another no-go zone is any hint of contextualizing sexual harassment or assault.

  No statute of limitations can provide exemption, much less a “she said/he said” defense in the age of “women must be believed.” The Brett Kavanaugh circus of September 2018 was a reminder that a lack of evidence, credible witnesses, or basic logic is no defense against the 30-year-old charges of alleged teenage sexual misbehavior. Bill Clinton managed to use his progressive credentials as an insurance policy to avoid for months any condemnation that he was a callous womanizer, but finally the press corps found his exploitative appetites too egregious to ignore.

  A third zero-tolerance zone is any hint of presidential debility.

  We were told in the dark days of 1973 that Nixon was non compos mentis, nursing his wounds with drink as his legendary constitution finally cracked under the pressure, making him supposedly unable physically to withstand the impending impeachment. “Saturday Night Live” made an industry out of Chevy Chase replaying Gerald Ford’s stumbles. Ronald Reagan was all but declared senile by the press for using index cards in some of his summits and speeches, or putting his hand to his ear and claiming he could not fathom reporters’ gottcha questions amid the din of swirling helicopter blades on the White House lawn. 

  Finally, lying, fibbing, and even presidential exaggeration are deemed intolerable—or so we are told by the media.

  It does not matter that the newsroom is currently one of the great purveyors of untruth, as we saw in the Russian collusion hoax, the dubious Wuhan wet-market narrative, or the yarn about the Lafayette Square militarization to green-light a Trump photo-op. 

  Reporters never let Richard Nixon live down his “tricky Dick” reputation for his purported bouts of misinformation. Lyndon Johnson’s lies about the supposed impending victory in Vietnam doomed him. 

  George H. W. Bush never got free of his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge. Bill Clinton was impeached because what he said about his sexual misadventures, sometimes under oath, could not be squared with the facts. 

  There is no need to rehash the media’s echo chamber of “Bush lied, people died” in connection with the flawed CIA intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. One reason why the media’s canonization of Barack Obama ultimately failed was the latter’s blatant lies. (Who can forget “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”?) The Washington Post and an epidemic of “fact-checkers” tallied up all of Trump’s exaggerations and contradictions to convince the public that he was an inveterate liar. 

  Americans may disagree with these journalistic rules, but to quote Hyman Roth about the state of our media, “This is the business we’ve chosen.”

  Yet it is arguable that while no other president in modern memory has trespassed more egregiously on these no-go areas than Joe Biden, he has received no criticism for his transgressions. 

  

  Joe Biden (never mind his son, Hunter) has compiled the most glaring rap sheet of racist quotes of any current modern political leader.

  He characterized Barack Obama as the first “clean and articulate” black presidential candidate. He told a group of accomplished black professionals that Romney would put “y’all back in chains,” as if they were helpless laborers. 

  Biden’s rants about Indians and donut shops, the Corn Pop fables, his dismissals of black journalists with put-downs such as “you ain’t black” and invectives such as “junkie” would have disqualified any other candidate.

  His earlier treatment of Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearing, his idolization of fossilized racist kingpins in the Senate, his rhetoric on busing and black career criminals, were all couched in racial condescension. 

  At a time when the current incarnation of Biden is siccing the federal government—and the Pentagon in particular—on a mythical, nationwide white supremacist conspiracy, the president’s own son is revealed to have habitually used the N-word and emulated what he thought was a backward black patois. Was Joe warning America about Hunter, when he charged that white supremacy reigned and must be dethroned?

  
   

  While Joe Biden is also pointing fingers at white America with despicable false accusations of anti-Asian hate crimes (in truth, these attacks disproportionately are committed by black males), the press is quiet about Hunter Biden’s exchanges with his cousin Caroline Biden over set-up “dates.” In one, Caroline warns Hunter “I can’t give you f—ing Asian sorry. I’m not doing it.”

  Hunter trumps her racist slurs with his own agreement: “No yellow.” 

  That story was buried by mainstream journalists who have long ago fused with the progressive cause.

  As senator, vice president, and presidential candidate Joe Biden was often caught—and occasionally even apologized for—habitually touching, smooching, squeezing, hugging, and breathing on women, some of them preteens, in a manner that can only be called creepy, with all of the females recoiling at his advances. When the intrusions became too great to ignore, the would-be president said only he would be “mindful” of invading the private space of women. 

  Tara Reade, a former assistant in Senator Biden’s office, replayed the role of Christine Blasey Ford with charges of sexual assault—but with far greater credibility and detail (“There was no exchange, really, he just had me up against the wall . . . I remember it happened all at once . . . his hands were on me and underneath my clothes.”). Reade provided corroborating evidence, and explicit details of assault, yet the same journalists and politicians—again so often joined at the hip—who had sought to destroy Brett Kavanaugh gave Biden a pass, absurdly citing the statute of limitations, and even questioning the sanity and stability of Reade herself.

  As far as presidential health goes, even Donald Trump’s enemies have remarked on his almost unnatural stamina and energy, characterized by 20-hour work days and near inexplicable rapid recovery from COVID-19. No matter. By mid-2017 there was a nonstop journalist mantra that Trump was “crazy” and “unhinged,” and too “sick” to remain president. The clamor continued until Trump himself took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and aced the exam’s questions. A Yale psychiatrist achieved mini-celebrity status by unprofessionally diagnosing Trump in absentia as mentally challenged and in need of a forced intervention—unhinged charges that nonetheless enhanced reporters’ frenzied calls for invocation of the 25th Amendment. 

  Contrast this with Joe Biden. He has trouble walking up the steps of the Air Force One. He forgets names and events. His days are short and his attention span shorter, his press conferences rare—and scripted. At the recent G-7 summit he displayed a mishmash of bizarre interruptions, “get off my lawn” temper tantrums at reporters, slurred words, incomplete thoughts and sentences, cognitive freezes, and general fragilities. His own administration, or more likely those around Vice President Kamala Harris, habitually leak to their lackeys in the media portentous “worries” that Biden’s infirmities are such that they can longer be successfully hidden. And yet the ruse continues.

  Finally, Biden says things that are just flat out lies. He declared that no Americans had been vaccinated until he took office, despite a presidential photo-op of him greeting the vaccination on December 21, 2020, and the fact 1 million people had been vaccinated by the day he took office, including him. At the G-7 meeting Biden offered his most egregious untruth—that Trump supporters had killed officer Brian Sicknick—although the autopsy report, now several weeks old, found Sicknick had died of natural causes a day after the riot. While the border is wide open, Biden ignores the chaos and asserts the border is secure and closed. Hunter Biden’s laptop, Joe insists, was a result of “Russian disinformation.” Almost everything Biden has said on illegal immigration, the effects of his proposed tax hikes, and the January 6 Capitol assault is untrue. 

  Reporters ignore the mounting lies, ironically winking and in acknowledgement that most are the result of Biden’s own cognitive deterioration—as if it is more reassuring that a president does not know what he is saying rather than is saying something untrue.

  How can we explain this utter dereliction of American journalism? 

  The media was always left-leaning. But after 2016, it openly announced that it could no longer remain unbiased given the existential threats supposedly posed by President Trump. CNN transmogrified from a leftist airport news aggregator into a purveyor of whoppers, open threats against the president, and outright obscenities. 

  Remember the blasé reporting about presidential decapitation and poisoning? On-air discussion of defecation? The forced retractions of fake news? The retirements and firings for fabricating stories? All that characterized CNN after 2015. 

  But aside from Trump, another reason why journalism died was the rise of Silicon Valley and related left-wing billionaires, enriched from monopolies of social media and Internet communications, buying up media companies. Abetted by the subversion of higher education that turned journalism schools into ideological factories, the tech oligarchs made war on the First Amendment, which they hate almost as much as the Second.  Reporters were rewarded handsomely for upholding woke orthodoxy, knowing that while an accurate story offering a positive view of a conservative could stall a career, any inaccurate negative take on conservatism was likely to be job enhancing.

  Finally, there is no longer a Democratic Party—at least not of the kind that Joe Manchin and earlier incarnations of Joe Biden and Bill Clinton used to represent. The Left talks of Representative Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) psychodramas and fissures in the Republican Party, but only because civil war for control of the Democratic Party is long over, and was won by the hardcore neosocialist left. Now it is only a matter of mopping up stragglers and relics. 

  Translated into presidential coverage, reporters know that any tough question or honest reporting on Joe Biden will not be praised for disinterested journalism or personal courage, but damned as apostasy and disloyalty. In truth, Democratic politicians treat the media now as if they were obedient poodles. They consider any who timidly bark when not so instructed to be in need of neutering.

  The final ironies? The Democratic Party won the long march through journalism, but this Pyrrhic victory has meant the destruction of every principle of journalistic integrity liberals ever claimed to champion. Now its most progressive leaders—Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi—have grown so accustomed to fawning Soviet-style reportage that they no longer have the ability to answer any real journalist’s questions. 

  Stranger still, the beneficiaries of media obsequiousness have nothing but contempt for the helots who now serve them. Remember Ben Rhodes’ haughty putdown of slavish journalists who “know nothing” and were unknowingly drowning in the swampy echo chambers he had so cynically created?

  Once politicians lose all fear of the press, they will say and do anything in their hubris, as we now see with the completely unmoored Joe Biden. And having lost not just the respect of the public but also the regard of the very progressives they idolize, America’s journalists are routinely slapped down as the fawning toadies they have become.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 21:40

• "Avocados Are Green Gold" As Thieves Target Farms  
  “Avocados Are Green Gold” As Thieves Target Farms  

  Avocado farmers in South Africa are combating thieves who have found that money grows on trees. 

  The Wall Street Journal interviewed avocado farmer Mark Alcock who has a 170-acre farm in South Africa, the world’s sixth-largest avocado exporter. He said his farm has a motion-activated infrared camera system operated by an ex-military soldier and protects the property from criminals. 

  Alcock is not alone. As prices increase due to cyclical factors, other farms have installed security systems to monitor their crops. 

  “As the value of the product rises, the accessibility of it rises because more orchards are being planted,” said Howard Blight, who farms avocados on a 350-acre farm. He said his farm is guarded by an electric fence and guards. 

  “It seems a bit drastic,” Blight said. “But avocados are the green gold.”

  

  Avocado theft used to be minimal but is now rampant because criminal gangs are getting involved and raiding farms, then pushing the fruit into legitimate markets, according to the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, an NGO. 

  The latest raids have disrupted the supply and the price of avocados across South Africa. Much of the fruit is destined for Europe, where wholesalers pay up to $2 per pound. 

  Perhaps the reason why criminal gangs are stealing avocado is that the financial legacy of the virus pandemic has doomed the country and will likely result in longer-term structural effects. This includes high levels of debt and soaring wealth inequality, pushing those who are jobless into criminal gangs. 

  Francisco Díaz, co-owner of Oh My Avo, Cape Town’s first avocado bar, said the crime wave is producing headaches for his business. 

  “This year it was a little bit crazy. Plenty of people are stealing them, so there was a big shortage,” Díaz said.

  Craig Coppen, co-director of Canine Security, provides security services to more than 30 commercial growers across the country, monitoring 3,700 acres. 

  On the other side of the world, drug cartels in Mexico have diversified from pumping cocaine and fentanyl into the US to more legitimate operations, including developing avocado farms or seizing them from local farmers. This lucrative business is feeding the West’s craze for avocado toast, popularized by millennials. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 21:20

• Alan Dershowitz: "Radical Left" Campaign To Get Justice Breyer To Retire Will "Backfire"
  Alan Dershowitz: “Radical Left” Campaign To Get Justice Breyer To Retire Will “Backfire”

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

  The left-wing campaign to pressure Justice Stephen Breyer to quit the Supreme Court will backfire, said Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz.

  

  Over the past several months, progressives in Congress and left-wing opinion piece writers have increasingly called on Breyer—who is part of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing—to step down due to his age after the justice publicly rebuffed proposals to “pack,” or expand, the Supreme Court.

  “They’re saying to him, ‘Look, quit, quit,’” Dershowitz said during an interview with WABC 770 on Sunday, “even though you’re healthy and well, and your appointment is for life because we want to make sure that President Biden gets to appoint your successor while there is still a majority of Democrats in the United States Senate.”

  Dershowitz argued that Democrats “want to make the Supreme Court a kind of political institution” packed with individuals who share the same ideological viewpoint.

  “Justices should sit as long as they are healthy,” Dershowitz said.

  “Oliver Wendell Holmes sat until he was over 90. [Louis] Brandeis sat until he was in his 80s. Some of our greatest decisions were written by octogenarians. And I don’t like the fact that there are people who want to pressure Justice Breyer to leave the court and make it even more political than it now is.”

  

  Attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, speaks to the press in the Senate Reception Room during the Senate impeachment trial at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 29, 2020. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

  The pressure campaign to get him to retire started months ago. In April, near the Supreme Court, a truck with the banner “Breyer, retire,” was seen driving around the building, according to photos and video uploaded at the time. In Congress, members of the “Squad,” including its de facto leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in June, have made similar requests of the justice.

  “It’s something that I’d think about, but I would probably lean towards yes,” the self-described Democratic socialist congresswoman told CNN earlier this month in response to a question about Breyer’s possible retirement. “But yes, you’re asking me this question, so I’ve just—I would give more thought to it but, but I’m inclined to say yes.”

  Progressives have cited Breyer’s relatively advanced age in arguing that he should step down. After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, President Donald Trump and the then-Republican-led Senate appointed Amy Coney Barrett, considered by some to be a conservative jurist, to the vacant Supreme Court spot.

  During Barrett’s Senate hearings, several top Democrats publicly suggested expanding the Supreme Court. However, without undoing the 60-vote filibuster in the equally divided Senate, it seems unlikely for such a measure to make it through Congress.

  Breyer himself in April spoke out about “packing” the court during a speech at Harvard, suggesting that such a measure would backfire and create an impression that the institution is politicized. Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) several days later then told news outlets that he believes the justice should step down.

  But, according to Dershowitz, the public pressure campaign likely “will backfire,” and Breyer is “not going to want to be perceived as having given in to pressure. I know him.”

  “He’s not the kind of guy who’s going to say, ‘I’m going to leave office as a result of pressure from some academics who want me to leave in order to serve their own political interests,’” the longtime former professor said. “So, A – It’s going to backfire. B – It’s age discrimination. C – It politicizes the Supreme Court. And it tells us what’s wrong with the hard left today. They see everything politically.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 21:00

• Exxon To Fire Up To 10% Of White Collar Workers For The Next 3 To 5 Years
  Exxon To Fire Up To 10% Of White Collar Workers For The Next 3 To 5 Years

  Late last year, when the fate of the reflation trade and the price of oil was still unclear, Exxon made the only decision that it could in order to preserve its dividend: it announced that it would cut 14,000 jobs worldwide by 2022, or about 20% of its workforce, and it would extend reductions well beyond that original time frame. The cost savings would go to fund the one thing the once world’s largest corporation was best known for – its generous dividend, which at one point last year yielded about 10% (it has since shrunk to 5.6%).

  Fast forward to today when the price of oil is at a three year high, the Exxon dividend is not only safe but according to BofA will be hiked, and the company is the target of multiple activist campaigns, with many pressing for it to refocus away from its long-term strategy of “dividend at any cost” and instead to embrace the virtue signaling ESG insanity that has gripped so many on Wall Street. And yet, despite all these favorable factors, Exxon is now unleashing another major reduction in force (i.e. mass layoff), with Bloomberg reporting that the oil giant is preparing to reduce headcount at its U.S. offices by between 5% and 10% annually for the next three to five years by using its performance-evaluation system to eliminate low performers.

  In a novel spin on mass layoffs, the cuts will target the lowest-rated employees relative to peers, and for that reason will not be characterized as layoffs. While such workers are typically put on a so-called performance improvement plan, many are expected to eventually leave on their own. This year’s evaluation is happening now but affected employees have not yet been notified, the people said.

  Bloomberg emphasizes that this latest plan is separate from last year’s announcement of 14,000 job cuts – meaning that in the near future the company may cut up to 30% of its existing workforce – and comes at a tumultuous time for Exxon, which is still grappling with the fallout from last month’s annual meeting, when shareholders rebuffed top management and replaced a quarter of the company’s board over climate and financial concerns.

  Sensing that the hammer is about to fall, several high-profile traders have also left in the last few weeks although these appear to be voluntary resignations and “there’s no suggestion the trading departures were related to the review program” which will mostly affect white-collar jobs in areas such as engineering, finance and project management,

  In order to preserve the dividend, Exxon has gone to great lengths to trim cash burn, and in addition to mass layoffs, other cost-cutting initiatives have included suspending bonuses and halting employee-contribution matches to 401k savings plans as the pandemic crushed demand for crude, saddling the company with a record annual loss.

  Needless to say, with oil at $75 a barrel, or where it was in late 2018, Exxon’s financial position has been substantially improved, even so the supermajor has some way to go to pay down debts accumulated during 2020’s market collapse, with Bloomberg noting that “a smaller and more efficient workforce is key to further improvements.”

  Exxon achieved $3 billion of annual “structural cost reductions” in 2020 and will continue to make savings through 2023, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said at the annual meeting in May. 

  “We’ve got additional work to continue to take advantage of the new organization and find opportunities to reduce our costs,” Woods said.

  Translation: many more layoffs are coming.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 20:40

• The State Convinced People It Was Dangerous For Them Not To Be Watched, Now Many Believe Surveillance Tech Is "For Our Own Good"
  The State Convinced People It Was Dangerous For Them Not To Be Watched, Now Many Believe Surveillance Tech Is “For Our Own Good”

  Authored by Aden Tate via The Organic Prepper blog,

  Yet another consequence of 2020 was the growth of public surveillance (aka Big Brother state) disguised under the umbrella of COVID. When you can convince a populace it is dangerous for them to be unobserved, you create the mindset that public surveillance is for the good of all. 

  

  Big Brother is bigger than ever

  I work within the security industry.

  One newer piece of technology that we can now install is AI fever monitoring cameras. Many buildings throughout the US now have a camera with thermal capabilities monitoring your every move when you walk in.

  Should you be deemed somebody with a temperature outside of the preset bounds, the system will use facial recognition to lock onto you. As you travel throughout the facility, security staff/management is notified. 

  How is this any different from giving a polygraph to every person without their knowledge or consent? 

  Is this information the world at large needs to know?

  Must you tell every business owner from here on all your recent health history to be admitted into the building? In the future, do I have to reveal every medical procedure I’ve had? Do I also have to report my sexual history, what foods I eat, and other private information before being allowed inside?

  Consider the invasions of privacy that come from the utilization of thermal technology. The front desk staff now knows who has a problem with armpit sweat, how hot your crotch is, and whose butt is sweating.

  Do HIPPA requirements apply here at all?

  What happens if it’s discovered that heart rate is linked with an infectious disease? Will we then incorporate heart rate monitors throughout our facility? I hope you don’t get nervous speaking to that person you find attractive. What if an employee who doesn’t like you works the cameras? Isn’t that a violation of privacy?

  What if it’s determined that abnormal sweating patterns are associated with an infectious disease? In this case, let’s say that it’s a sweaty butt. Are thermal cameras going to monitor everybody’s backsides in such an event?

  Do you see how this can quickly grow into a terrifying experience?

  Privacy is foundational to freedom

  The Founding Fathers of America fully understood the importance of privacy when it came to freedom. It’s for this reason that the Fourth Amendment was written.

  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

  Is it not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for someone to use a camera to collect your biometrics without your consent? Are you secure in your person and effects in such a case? Are we now subject to rights violations each time we enter a grocery store, doctor’s office, or gas station? Does modern American society demand that our rights be violated so that we can live within that society?

  Surveillance of US citizens and sensitive data collection reached epic proportions

  COVID tech used to monitor the American people during the past year and a half collected more sensitive data than ever before.

  Want proof?

  • Alabama State University purchased thermal imaging and facial recognition-equipped drones to enforce social distancing and masking in public. 
  • Some US school districts required their students and staff to wear a Bluetooth armband to monitor their temperature.

  The end result of these types of policies is to have authorities dictating your oxygen intake and whether or not you’re allowed to hug your friends. 

  Want more proof?

  Online classrooms – intended to protect students against COVID – were turned into the ever-present TV cameras from 1984.

  • Twelve-year-old Isaiah Elliot of Colorado flashed a toy gun across his screen during one of his lectures and was then suspended. Police were then sent to his house for a welfare check.
  • Things were no different in Maryland. An 11-year-old boy had the police called on him by his teacher. The teacher saw a BB gun hanging on his bedroom wall during a Google Meet class.

  When government employees get to decide which toys your children play with and what they decorate their bedrooms with, you have a public surveillance problem. 

  The end result of policies such as these is authorities demanding to violate your right to health privacy, then threatening your child with potential kidnapping (via Social Services) if you refuse to send your child to school. 

  Is the abolition of cash for your health or control?

  The push for the abolition of cash was heavy throughout 2020. For example, the CNN article “Dirty money: the case against using cash during the coronavirus outbreak.” wrote: 

  The ongoing spread of coronavirus is forcing institutions around the world to rethink one particularly germy surface that most consumers touch every day: cash.

  What’s the end result of this movement? A cashless society, and therefore, the monitoring and controlling of every purchase you make. 

  And now we have the vaccine passport

  Now Americans must “state your name and race” before using certain transportation services, entering certain buildings, or going to certain churches. And it’s only going to continue to grow in use.

  What does a vaccine passport do? First, it gives people the ability to know everywhere you’ve ever been. And, should it become digitally uploaded, to see where you are right now. Also, it lets them know whether or not you’re willing to comply with tyranny or not. Those who don’t – those who haven’t been placed on the list – are easier to find.

  And when you’re easier to find – well, you end up in a situation very akin to Soviet Russia, do you not?

  “These are the people who have not pledged loyalty to Stalin! Do with this list as you will!”

  Public health is the perfect guise for tyranny

  It’s based on fear, and fear is a potent motivator. If you can get most people to seek security rather than freedom, slavery is not far behind. As FA Hayek said regarding security in his masterpiece The Road to Serfdom, “the general striving for it, far from increasing the chances of freedom, becomes the gravest threat to it.”

  Do you enjoy your freedom? Do you enjoy your right to privacy – not having a peeping Tom invading every aspect of your life? Then pay attention to what is being done with COVID tech. Watch both where and how it is being used.

  Because I think you’ll agree with me: it’s not in your best interest.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 20:20

• Vaccines Exhibit "Reduced Efficacy" Against "Delta" Variant, WHO Doctor Warns
  Vaccines Exhibit “Reduced Efficacy” Against “Delta” Variant, WHO Doctor Warns

  As the mutant COVID-19 strain known as “Delta” picks up steam across Europe and the US, one of the WHO’s leading doctors has just expressed concern about recent research published in the Lancet showing that the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines aren’t as effective at protecting against “Delta”.

  Answering a question from a reporter during the organization’s regular Monday briefing in Geneva, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said that there is data “showing a reduction in neutralization” for the Delta variant, but not as much as the “Beta” variant – better known as the mutant strain that was first discovered in South Africa.

  

  She continued on, noting that the first generation of vaccines are still highly effective: “Having said that, these vaccines are still highly effective, they produce enough antibodies to protect against serious disease and death. While we are seeing some reduced efficacy, they are still effective at preventing severe disease and death including against the delta variant.”

  Ultimately, the WHO needs to vaccinate as many people as quickly as possible – which is the goal of Covax, the WHO’s program to vaccinate the world – to give dangerous variants less opportunity to take root and spread.

  “The goal of Covax is that we need those who are most at risk to severe disease, and those who are most exposed, to receive those vaccines and to be protected,” Dr. Kerkhove said.

  To learn more about vaccine efficacy, the WHO has been “working with a global network…to get these studies under way…and to look at real-world efficacy data as well.” New research is coming in “fast and furious” and WHO is doing everything it can to determine what’s relevant and what’s not. The agency remains vigilant, however, because they fear that over time a growing number of “double” or “triple” mutants could further erode the efficacy of the first generation of vaccines. What’s more, “there may be a time where we have a constellation of mutations that arise in a variant” that will cause vaccines to lose potency entirely.

  Readers can watch the entire briefing below. Dr. Kerkhove is asked about the threat posed by mutant strains just before the 1-hour mark:

  Recent evidence suggests that the Delta variant, which has prompted concern worldwide, has also led to new surges of COVID in under-vaccinated parts of the US. According to BBG, even as the number of fully vaccinated Americans reaches 150MM, the genomics firm Helix has analyzed about 20K samples from COVID tests across more than 700 American counties and found that cases of the Delta variant appear to be spreading much more quickly in areas with lower vaccination rates than in areas that have higher rates.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 20:00

• Professors Call For Hate Speech Protections To Be Extended To Animals
  Professors Call For Hate Speech Protections To Be Extended To Animals

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Two professors at the University of Sheffield have published a piece in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies to extend hate speech protections to animals to deal with hateful “speciesist” remarks. Drs. Josh Milburn and Alasdair Cochrane insist that such protections will help achieve a “more benign human–animal relations within society.”  The need for speech criminalization is based on the view that “some animals do seem to have their social confidence eroded because of their awareness of the risk of violence.”

  

  We previously discussed the campaign by PETA to end the use of animal references in pejorative comments. It called for the end of the use of pig, chicken, pig, rat, snake and other references to “stand up for justice by rejecting supremacist language.”

  These two academics go further to demand actual speech crimes and controls to protect animals:

  “Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups. However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech….We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech.”

   What was striking to me in the work is the reliance on the writings of NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who I debated a couple years ago at Rice University over his work in establishing speech codes and crimes. Despite my respect for him as an academic, I have long objected to Waldron’s work as inimical to free speech and creating a slippery slope of ever-expanding censorship.  That danger is evident in this latest work.  The professors embrace Waldron’s concept of “group defamation” and the harm it causes to individuals in society. They then extend that concept to animals:

  “the best reading of Waldron’s theory must include certain animals within its protective remit…some states have enacted constitutional provisions for the sake of animals, some of which explicitly recognise the ‘dignity’ of animals.But, again, none of these provisions acknowledges that animals possess the Waldronian sense of civic dignity: none views animals as possessing equal social standing, membership, status, and rights. No community truly regards its animal residents as members of society, and none recognises them as equals.”

  The argument illustrates how speech controls and crimes develop into an insatiable appetite for more and more regulation in maintaining what Waldron calls a better society. More and more speech is pulled into this vortex of criminalization and regulation.

  As many know on this blog, I have long called for greater protections for animals and the recognition broader of animal rights. This includes greater standing to argue for relief in court on behalf of such animal interests. However, I am also a free speech advocate. Indeed, academics like Waldron probably view me as something of an extremist in my own right. I admit that I oppose most regulation and criminalization of speech. I may be a free speech dinosaur in that sense. Traditional free speech values are certainly out of vogue among academics.  I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I seriously do not believe that these animals are harmed by such comments but I know that free speech will be further harmed by their criminalization.

  The danger is really not a line of woke Weimaraners because this really protects the sensibilities of humans.  Indeed, it may be an odd form of anthropomorphism in assuming hurt feelings that humans would have. Animals can clearly sense anger and disapproval. However, few leave the room when you complain of living a “dog’s life” or “eating like a pig.”

  There is a point about such phraseology but I prefer Dr. Doolittle’s version:

  <

  You can read the study here.

  *  *  *

  Update: Soon after this column was posted, I received a thoughtful and clarifying response from Professor Milburn.  With his approval, I can including that response to this posting so that readers understand the position of the authors. I appreciate his reaching out and I encourage readers to consider the more nuanced view that he is suggesting:

  Thank you for blogging about the article I wrote with Alasdair Cochrane on animals and hate speech. We, of course, welcome engagement and analysis from legal scholars.

  I am emailing to clarify that, in the article, we do not say that animals should be protected from hate speech. We argue for a conditional: given that we have found — in existing scholarly discourse about the foundations of hate speech law — no compelling reason to draw a line, we conclude that if humans should be protected by hate-speech laws, then (in principle) animals should be protected by hate-speech laws.

  I believe that this is a conclusion that could be endorsed by people who support the existence of hate-speech laws and those who do not. Indeed, I have previously spoken with a colleague who is, like you, very sceptical of hate-speech laws, and he suggested that Alasdair and I frame the paper explicitly as a reductio-style argument against hate-speech laws. We do not do this in the paper — indeed, we do not take a side in the question of whether hate-speech laws are justified at all. But we welcome engagement with our arguments from people who are generally supportive of hate-speech laws and those who are generally opposed.

  Anyways; thank you, again, for taking the time to write about our paper.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 19:40

• "This Is Not A Temporary Situation": The Global Chip Shortage Will Continue To Push Prices Higher
  “This Is Not A Temporary Situation”: The Global Chip Shortage Will Continue To Push Prices Higher

  The ongoing global semiconductor shortage is causing prices of electronics to rise while at the same time pressuring suppliers and material providers to continue raising prices. In the midst of the shortage, demand for consumer electronics has continued to rocket higher. 

  Ergo, industry officials believe that the increases are likely to continue, according to a new Wall Street Journal report. The effects can be easily seen in consumer electronics. 

  The report notes that items like one ASUS laptop that formerly cost $900 now costs $950. An HP Chromebook laptop that used to cost $220 has seen its price rise to $250. In fact, HP has raised consumer PC prices by 8% and printer prices by more than 20% in just the short span of a year. the company’s CEO blames the rise in prices on “component shortages”.

  

  Dell Technologies Inc. Chief Financial Officer Thomas Sweet recently said: “As we think about component cost increases, we’ll adjust our pricing as appropriate.”

  Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi made excuses for HP explained the price hikes by saying they reflected an absence of usual discounts, instead of all-out price increases. 

  Vincent Roche, the CEO of chip maker Analog Devices Inc., commented: “We’re not taking advantage of this cycle to do anything on pricing, other than where we are paying more for the additional supply that we’ve got to get on board. We’re passing that on.”

  Hock Tan, CEO of Broadcom Inc., simply noted: “We see cost inflation.”

  Digi-Key Electronics has also raised prices of semiconductor-related components by roughly 15% this year. They blame it on “pressures from the supply crunch”. Certain components now cost 40% more than they used to, according to David Stein, the company’s vice president of global supplier management.

  

  “Contract prices for computer memory have risen about 34% since the beginning of last year,” the Journal notes, calling the rising prices “part of broader uptick in inflation in the U.S. economy”.

  The median price of the top 20 bestselling microcontrollers is up by more than 12% since the middle of last year, according to Supplyframe Inc.

  Dale Ford, the chief analyst at the Electronic Components Industry Association, concluded: “Raw-material costs have gone up more recently, and I think people are now saying this is not a temporary situation. Price increases are going to be durable.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 19:20

• Coca-Cola Diversity Policy Risks Violating Anti-Discrimination Laws, Shareholders Warn
  Coca-Cola Diversity Policy Risks Violating Anti-Discrimination Laws, Shareholders Warn

  Authored by GQ Pan via The Epoch Times,

  A group of Coca-Cola shareholders are warning that the company’s recent diversity policy would actually require contracted law firms to violate anti-discrimination laws.

  

  In a letter dated June 11, the American Civil Rights Project (ACRP) noted that on Jan. 28, the general counsel of Coca-Cola demanded law firms seeking to keep the company as a client must commit that at least 30 percent of billed time would be from “diverse attorneys,” and at least half of that time would be from black attorneys.

  The ACRP, speaking on behalf of “a set of concerned Coca-Cola Company shareholders,” demanded that the soft drink company either “publicly retract the discriminatory outside-counsel policies” or otherwise “provide access to the corporate records related to the decision of Coca-Cola’s officers and directors to adopt and retain those illegal policies.”

  Coca-Cola’s race-specific contracting policy, according to the ACRP, has exposed the corporation and its shareholders to “material risk of liability” for potentially violating anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

  The letter further alleged that all of Coca-Cola’s decision makers knew, or should have known, that the policy was potentially illegal. It said those who were not so aware of the legal risks either have failed their responsibility or “relied on the inexcusably flawed advice of counsel.”

  The diversity plan was shelved following the resignation of Bradley Gayton as Coca-Cola’s general counsel, after less than a year on the leadership position.

  Gayton wrote in January that it is a “crisis” that the legal profession is not “treating the issue of diversity and inclusion as a business imperative.”

  “The Stockholders therefore demand that you immediately publicly retract the policies in their entirety,” the letter concluded, adding that they will be “forced to seek judicial relief” to protect their interests in the company if they do not receive a response to their demands within 30 business days.

  Coca-Cola, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, came under fire in February, when its employees were allegedly instructed to be “less white” as part of a “Confronting Racism” training course featuring interviews with sociologist Robin DiAngelo, the author of a 2018 book called “White Fragility.”

  “In the U.S. and other Western nations, white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white,” reads one of the slides, allegedly sent from an “internal whistleblower” and posted on Twitter by YouTube commentator Karlyn Borysenko. The post went viral.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 19:00

• How Crowds Of Partiers Transformed NYC's Washington Square Park Into A "No Go Zone"
  How Crowds Of Partiers Transformed NYC’s Washington Square Park Into A “No Go Zone”

  Though it hasn’t garnered nearly as much attention as the occupation of Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, which was widely recognized as the genesis of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that exploded in the years after the financial crisis, the occupation of Washington Square Park has shown no signs of slowing down, even with the Big Apple’s crowded mayoral primary just one day away.

  Some have even likened the park to a “no go zone”, a reference to areas (typically outside the US) where high rates of violent crime prompt outsiders to avoid the area.

  Late last week, the NYT published a lengthy piece chronicling the situation at WSP, which has long had a reputation as a haven for the homeless and for drug dealers. Since the city imposed a curfew a few weeks back, the park has become a rallying point for activists and partygoers alike who are trying to make a point about reclaiming public space. The bougie residents who live in the area surrounding the park told the NYT that the situation “felt like war”.

  

  After the NYPD first clashed with revelers in the park on June 5, the city ordered the police to stand down, prompting homeowners and renters who live near the park to brace for “a summer of chaos and sleepless nights.”

  Edith Molina, 19, came down from the Bronx. “This is the park you come to chill out,” she said. “In the Bronx, you have gang violence, and police run you out of parks. Here, police don’t do anything.”

  On recent weeks, the NYT reported that the number of visitors in the park sometimes balloons to more than 1K people, packed into a 9.74-acre piece of land in the heart of Greenwich Village. With the homeless and the crowd of young revelers has come drug dealers, who have created an influx of crack and heroin dealing in the park. The Daily Mail added, in a story published Sunday night, that residents have also complained about “prostitution and public sexual acts” being carried out in the park.

  Speaking on Monday, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio said he believes the situation will resolve itself “naturally”.

  

  The park is subject to a midnight curfew, but the NYPD has taken a lax approach in recent weeks to enforcing the midnight curfew, allowing revelers to party on long into the night.

  While the noise has drawn most of the complaints from residents, many have also complained to police about the surge in police. Last Saturday alone, two people were stabbed, a man was beaten and mugged of his phone and a 77-year-old cook at a nearby diner was attacked after a young man drawn to the area by the park threw a tantrum after being refused access to the diner’s bathroom. A handful of overdoses have also been reported in the park seemingly every day.

  

  Violent crime has been climbing across the Big Apple since the start of the pandemic. Felony assaults are up 8% for the first six months of 2021 vs. the same period last year, while rapes are up by 3%. Shootings in the Big Apple have increased by 64% year-on-year, while murders are up 13%.

  

  While many of the residents who live nearby see themselves as liberals, many fear speaking out because they worry about being labeled a “NIMBY” – an acronym for “not in my backyard”. The phrase is a reference to supposedly “liberal” individuals who oppose development like multi-family housing, rehab facilities and halfway houses in their neighborhoods. Still, a growing number say they’re in favor of more aggressive police tactics as violence in the park has escalated.

  

  Carmen Gonzalez, a dog photographer in the neighborhood, said: “Once the sun comes down, the park changes drastically. It’s time to draw the line.” Others articulated similar complaints.

  Christa Shaub, who has lived in the area for 15 years, and Amy Heinemams, who has lived in there for six years, said the partying in the park is nothing new especially during the summer months, but ‘it’s exaggerated post-pandemic.’

  ‘This is an open park, but you need to have respect for people,’ Shaub said. ‘There needs to be regulations.’

  The mostly young tourists who complain the loudest about the park being “public space” apparently haven’t put much thought into the fact that some people are now too afraid to use the space.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 18:40

• Ron Paul: The Road To Authoritarianism Is Paved With Fiat Currency
  Ron Paul: The Road To Authoritarianism Is Paved With Fiat Currency

  Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

  Last week, the Federal Reserve announced it will maintain an interest rate target of zero to 0.25 percent for the rest of 2021. The Fed said it will also continue its monthly purchase of 120 billion dollars of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities.

  Some Fed board members are forecasting a rate increase by late 2022 or 2023, though with the rate still not reaching one percent.

  The Fed will neither allow interest rates to rise to market levels nor reduce its purchase of Treasury securities. A significant increase in interest rates would make the government’s borrowing costs unsustainable.

  The Fed also raised its projected rate of inflation to three percent, although it still insists the rise in prices is a transitory effect of the end of the lockdowns.

  There is some truth to this, as it will take some time for businesses to get back to full capacity.

  However, the Fed began taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy in September of 2019, when it started pumping billions of dollars a day into the repo market that banks use to make short-term loans to each other.

  The lockdowns only postponed and deepened the forthcoming Fed-caused meltdown.

  Germany’s Deutsche Bank recently released a paper warning about the Federal Reserve continuing to disregard the inflation risk caused by easy money policies designed to “stimulate” the economy and facilitate massive government spending.

  Germans have reason to be sensitive to the consequences of inflation, including hyperinflation.

  Out-of-control inflation played a major role in the collapse of the German economy in the 1920s, which led to the rise of the National Socialists.

  

  This pattern could repeat itself in America where we have already witnessed the rise of authoritarian movements. Last summer, groups exploited legitimate concerns about police misconduct to ferment violence across the country. Can anyone doubt that an economic crisis that leads to mass unemployment, foreclosures, and maybe even shortages will result in large-scale violence? Or that the violence will be exploited by power-hungry politicians? Or that many people will once again fall for the big lie that preserving safety requires giving up their liberty?

  The apparatus of repression already exists in the form of a surveillance state, police militarization, and big tech’s cooperation with big government to stamp out dissent. Now, President Biden and his congressional allies want to use the January 6 US Capitol turmoil to justify expanding government powers in the name of stopping “domestic terrorists.” Part of this new campaign is expanding censorship of “extremism,” defined as any views that threaten the status quo. The Biden administration has taken a page from the Communist playbook in suggesting people report their friends and family who are becoming “radicalized.”

  We may still have time to prevent collapse in America, or at least to make sure the collapse leads to a transition to a free society. The key to success is spreading the ideas of liberty until we have the ability to force the politicians to dismantle the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that is the lifeblood of authoritarian government.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 18:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• When Capitals Move
  When Capitals Move

  Packing up a whole capital and moving it to a new location might seem like a daunting task, but, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, some countries have actually tackled the undertaking in the past and one more is planning a move for the future.

  A recent change of capital was the move of the German government and administration from Western city Bonn to Berlin upon Reunification in 1991. The vote that made the city Germany’s capital once again was finalized on June 20 – exactly 30 years ago on Sunday.

  Political restructuring has, however, not been the most common reason for capital moves in the past.

  More cases exist where countries set out to create a neutral city, often a purpose-built capital, either as a vanity project, to bring development to an underserved region or to minimize conflict between cities vying for the position of capital. Prominent examples are the creation of the United State’s capital Washington D.C. in 1790 or Brazil’s capital Brasilia in the 1960s. Kazakhstan’s new capital Astana and Myanmar’s Naypyidaw are more recent manifestations of the phenomenon occurring in dictatorships, where little public oversight, a penchant for being flashy and a fear of attacks has created the right environment for capital moves. While fear of Russian expansionism is rumored to be one of the reasons the Kazakh capital was moved closer to the border (to deter an invasion), the reasoning of the notoriously secretive Burmese junta is not completely understood in international circles. The African continent has also seen two moves to purpose-built capitals – in Nigeria and Tanzania – while a third one in Cote D’Ivoire is considered incomplete by the U.N.

  Another curious case of a capital move upon a change of political systems is the independence of Botswana in 1964. Previously, a city named Mafeking had served as the capital of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, which predated Botswana. Astonishingly, due to a back and forth of colonial powers, the city was located outside the old protectorate and new state, prompting the move to Garborone.

  Likewise, only one change of capital has taken place around the world because of environmental issues, but that could soon change. In 1970, Belize’s new capital Belmopan was created after a hurricane majorly ravished then-capital Belize City. At least partially owed to environmental trouble, Indonesia has announced that it will move its capital from Jakarta to a new purpose-build location in the region of East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo by 2024.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The Indonesian leadership has cited the intent to help another region structurally the reason for the move, but observers also see burdens from pollution and overcrowding. Jakarta is also one of the fastest sinking cities on Earth due to its location below sea level and the excessive extraction of ground water.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 02:45

• Have The Great Reset Technocrats Really Thought This Through?
  Have The Great Reset Technocrats Really Thought This Through?

  Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The only thing left to destroy in a world populated by elites alone, are other elites. It would seem that the desire to dominate others does not simply come to an end on its own.

  

  With the UN World Food Program announcing that some 270 million people worldwide now face starvation, the ongoing debate about the real aims of the technocracy is profound. The question is whether their aim tends more towards major population reduction, or more towards a new type of slavery.

  It appears that philosophical and long-term practical questions remain a mystery. We will argue that evil, not simply the influence of the base upon the superstructure, is at the core of this endeavor. We have defined evil as inflicting the highest degree of pain upon the greatest number of resisting subjects. In short, we have defined evil as sadism, inflicting evil because it brings satisfaction to those inflicting it.

  Because evil is fundamentally a destructive force, it cannot create anything: nothing in it is truly novel nor of use to humanity. Its pleasures are short-lived and spurious. It is unsustainable, self-defeating, ultimately leading to self-destruction.

  We have adequately assessed from any number of sources that nefarious interests are behind this process, who seek to make the process also about the exercise of power, in addition to several other aims (remaining in power, exercising power in ways consistent with their occult beliefs about evil, etc.). We understand that they are ‘evil’ because they involve a type of ‘power-over’ (as opposed to power-with/consent) which derives this power from fear-mongering and terrorism upon the population. Terrorism here is defined as the operationalized use of fear, pain, and other injury towards socio-political aims.

  Had their plans not been rooted in evil, they would have used soft-power tactics like manufacturing consent, to arrive at their ends.

  The aim of the Great Reset is to transition the ruling plutocratic oligarchy into a technocratic one. The basis of plutocracy is finance, and the introduction of AI and automation eliminates the basis for finance as the foundation of an economy of scale. This is because automation and deflation move in tandem, making new technologies net losers. Therefore a new paradigm accounting for this post-financial ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, must be introduced.

  

  Side-by-side comparison of auto-assembly line: 1920 vs. 2020 – ‘Humans need not apply’

  But the ideology of the Great Reset is based within the old financialist paradigm, which is one of cost externalization. When human beings are no longer involved in the valorization process in the production of goods and services, then humanity itself is the cost that requires externalization – elimination.

  But how it is that sadism became the occult religion of the ruling class, presents a “chicken-or-the-egg” type of question. That is, did the corporate ideology mutate into occult sadism, or did occult sadism find its expression through the corporate ideology? This question will no doubt form the basis of later inquiry.

  We often defer to nefarious motivations or processes in terms of ‘greed’, or ‘self-interest’, ‘power obsession’ or the ‘crisis of capital accumulation’, ‘speculative bubbles’.

  And these do not suffice in the final analysis, though they provide explanatory power. The problem arises in predictive power, because while we face a crisis of diminishing returns due to automation (as the increasing tendency towards net loss on new large capital investments), the real psychological needs that motivate the present plutocracy as a power-group are actually undermined in significant and sudden population reduction, or new post-coercive technologies that eliminate human agency. This may seem counter-intuitive, but in light of an understanding of the self-defeating nature of evil, we will explore this question.

  When we map out the probabilities of three intersecting policy vectors, we can understand this question even better. Those policy vectors are a.) neuralink/AI/Neural Implants/magneto proteins and related transhumanism, b.) depopulation as part of stated Agenda 2030 goals, c.) automation/roboticization, 4IR, and IoT.

  This will follow from our last piece on the subject, The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials:

  Neural Implants

  The development and introduction of neural implants, magneto proteins, etc., can go in any number of directions. Some types of these promise to give elites ‘super-human’ cognitive abilities. However, another very practical application is to mandate that these are used on the general populace as to handicap them or control their thoughts in some way.

  In that sense, neural implants can work like pharmaceuticals are used in psychiatry. In the creation of this sort of Huxleyesque ‘Brave New World’, we can easily see the continuation of a paradigm already existing today. This is one where it is common-place to find various predictable depressions, anxieties, and neuroticisms caused by contemporary social conditions, but treated psychiatrically instead of resolved socio-economically.

  Neural implants can also perform a similar function, but go even further. Beyond emotions or basic effect on the re-uptake of certain hormones like serotonin, etc.; neural implants can direct thoughts or change whole cognitive processes. Beyond feelings, drives, and impulses, neural implants promise to produce actual thoughts in the minds of the subject.

  

  LLNL engineer Vanessa Tolosa holds up a brain implant – credit: Extreme Tech Magazine, July 2014

  In between these two is a hybrid form – nanotech and chemogenetics working with optogenetics. Because the delivery system to the brain can be through injection, nanolipids and other compounds can come in the form of shots. These can be delivered as part of a required ‘vaccination’ regimen (insofar as that term has been redefined), as nanotech features already in the Covid-19 shot.

  Therefore, such can be included – whether disclosed to the public or not – in required vaccinations.

  The development of these would seem, however, to be a technology that would support slavery, but does not rule out genocide. Certainly the ability to control the thoughts of a population would greatly mitigate risk in the view of the state apparatus, especially as it moves towards genocide.

  Depopulation: Myths vs. Facts

  Population control and population reduction have long been policy at various institutions and think tanks committed to global governance, from the UN to the World Economic Forum. It was a part of the UN’s Millennium goals, and since the dawn of the 21st century, has been part of UN Agenda 2030.

  It is important to now introduce a framework for understanding the problem of population in light of economic development. The long standing view is that economic development leads to population stagnation, even decline. The idea here is that education and urbanization are processes which lead towards better knowledge of basic family planning, in tandem with improved access to abortion and birth control.

  The underlying postulate is that people naturally do not want to be burdened with children, that children are an affront to freedom in the abstract. The formula is that as people are better educated and have more meaningful work and interesting lives, they know both how to prevent pregnancy and also no longer have ‘primitive’ inclinations towards large family building.

  This mythology was built up around a notion that people are fundamentally self-interested in the narrowest sense, to the exclusion of other desires, needs, and impulses. They are presented as the norm such to furthermore create a broader culture which opposes procreation.

  Instead, the real mechanism pushing population stagnation in the 1st world are increased pressures of work, and increased costs of living. Rather than ascribing population stagnation to improved conditions of life, these are more related to austere conditions imposed by late modernity. The costs of property, of rents, of food, and also because of the decline in quality of goods through increased planned obsolescence, has placed more economic pressure on individuals and couples. It has led to the requirement that both members of a household are working full-time. And even with this, home ownership in cosmopolitan centers is practically impossible for most. Austerity has also led to stagnation in life expectancy.

  This truth is exposed in actual policy papers like “New strategies for slowing population growth” (1995). Here, the doublespeak is evident, with easily decipherable phrases within it; “…reduce unwanted pregnancies by expanding services that promote reproductive choice and better health, to reduce the demand for large families by creating favorable conditions for small families…”. What could possibly be meant by ‘create favorable conditions for small families’?

  Economic development does not reduce population, but if we add austerity and demanding and inflexible work obligations, then we land on an answer. Economic prosperity, as it has for time immemorial, promises to greatly increase the population in the absence of a program of population reduction. Because an organic 4IR not brought in by the technocracy would decrease work obligations and increase quality of life markers, we would expect a population boom.

  Consequently, projections that that population will top off at just under 10 billion by the 2060’s are as erroneous as they are linear. Without a technocracy working to actively reduce population, as they believe, an economy based on automation and AI would see a population explosion.

  Conclusion

  It is still likely that the would-be technocrats have indeed thought out the end-game, and that there are any number of possibilities that will allow them to harvest sadistic pleasure as an exercise of absolute power, in perpetuity. This might mean increasing fear of extermination far beyond actual population reduction. It could mean maintaining many aspects of agency for the controlled population, so that their pains are internalized in multivariate and complex fashions, that include confused feelings of self-blame, identifying with the abuser, resentment, regret, and also violations of will and dignity. Again, if will is not a factor, then all of these potential arenas of psychological pain are not present.

  To frame the following, it is fundamental to understand that in a post-labor civilization, the status of humanity no longer exists upon a metric of utility. Either civilization exists to improve the human condition, or to increase human suffering. There are no trade-offs or costs. Society is either good or evil.

  But evil is short lived and short-sighted, and this is why: Sudden population reduction is a fire-cracker, it explodes just once. The pleasure in the process of eradicating billions of people, and the fear, pain, and suffering this would cause, within the span of a few short years, only gets to be enjoyed once. It’s a sacrificial ritual upon the altar of Moloch that can only be performed one time.

  Likewise with post-coercive technologies: Without agency, controlling people serves no purpose in terms of violating their own will or desire. Causing pain on a subject that does not resist because he has no will, gives the sadist much less pleasure than would pain on a subject against their will.

  Moreover, the position of being elite is relative to a number of factors such as distribution of wealth, power, and/or privilege, and the sheer numbers in terms of population, that one possesses these advantages over.

  If there are only elites remaining, then they would have merely introduced a new kind of egalitarian society on the foundation of superabundance and a miniscule human population. If living conditions of an existing humanity can be greatly reduced, then the relative privilege and luxury enjoyed by the elites grows in that proportion.

  Absent some radical life-extending technology, it is conceivable that science and technology have already reached the zenith point at which privilege and luxury cannot be furthered. A reasonable solution would be to reduce living conditions for others so as to enhance their own relative privilege. The greater number of people who live in reduced conditions, the more privileged one’s position of privilege actually is.

  Likewise, it would seem that maintaining some human population as ‘possessions’ would serve to augment ownership over human beings, perhaps the most valuable type of possession because they are aware that they are owned – but only if that humiliates them. For what other purpose is there for slavery, in a world without human labor?

  Does it have any meaning, or is any satisfaction achieved, by governing over people without the possibility to have the will to either consent, or conversely, resent the ruler? Here we can understand it along these lines: the possibility for agency means that governing can happen with their support, or against their will.

  But neural implant control over cognitive processes, eliminates the possibility for will, which would deprive technocrats of the pleasure of ruling with or against the will of the ruled.

  Therefore, the destructive evil framework of those behind the Great Reset is revealed. The use of strategy, planning, and cunning to achieve their desired result is prevalent. But have they examined the foundation of their desires? Do they understand what their victory would deliver to them?

  The only thing left to destroy in a world populated by elites alone, are other elites. It would seem that the desire to dominate others does not simply come to an end on its own.

  For these reasons, it is likely that some elites have seen the problem in this end game. This would explain the inter-elite conflict which we have explored previously, and will return to in the near future.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/21/2021 – 02:00

• The FBI's Mafia-Style Justice: To Fight Crime, The FBI Sponsors 15 Crimes A Day
  The FBI’s Mafia-Style Justice: To Fight Crime, The FBI Sponsors 15 Crimes A Day

  Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

  – Friedrich Nietzsche

  Almost every tyranny being perpetrated by the U.S. government against the citizenry – purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure – has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government.

  

  Think about it.

  Cyberwarfare. Terrorism. Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race. Surveillance. The drug wars. Domestic extremism. The COVID-19 pandemic.

  In almost every instance, the U.S. government (often spearheaded by the FBI) has in its typical Machiavellian fashion sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.

  Who is the biggest black market buyer and stockpiler of cyberweapons (weaponized malware that can be used to hack into computer systems, spy on citizens, and destabilize vast computer networks)? The U.S. government.

  Who is the largest weapons manufacturer and exporter in the world, such that they are literally arming the world? The U.S. government.

  Which country has a history of secretly testing out dangerous weapons and technologies on its own citizens? The U.S. government.

  Which country has conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins? The U.S. government.

  What country has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting? The U.S. government.

  Are you getting the picture yet?

  The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.

  The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.

  Consider that this very same government has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

  So why is the government doing this? Money, power and total domination.

  We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.

  Case in point: the FBI.

  The government’s henchmen have become the embodiment of how power, once acquired, can be so easily corrupted and abused. Indeed, far from being tough on crime, FBI agents are also among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers.

  Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government, or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work.

  For example, this is the agency that used an undercover agent/informant to seek out and groom an impressionable young man, cultivating his friendship, gaining his sympathy, stoking his outrage over the injustices perpetrated by the U.S. government, then enlisting his help to blow up the Herald Square subway station. Despite the fact that Shahawar Matin Siraj ultimately refused to plant a bomb at the train station, he was arrested for conspiring to do so at the urging of his FBI informant and used to bolster the government’s track record in foiling terrorist plots. Of course, no mention was made of the part the government played in fabricating the plot, recruiting a would-be bomber, and setting him up to take the fall.

  This is the government’s answer to precrime: first, foster activism by stoking feelings of outrage and injustice by way of secret agents and informants; second, recruit activists to carry out a plot (secretly concocted by the government) to challenge what they see as government corruption; and finally, arrest those activists for conspiring against the government before they can actually commit a crime.

  It’s a diabolical plot with far-reaching consequences for every segment of the population, no matter what one’s political leanings.

  As Rozina Ali writes for The New York Times Magazine, “The government’s approach to counterterrorism erodes constitutional protections for everyone, by blurring the lines between speech and action and by broadening the scope of who is classified as a threat.”

  This is not an agency that appears to understand, let alone respect, the limits of the Constitution.

  Just recently, it was revealed that the FBI has been secretly carrying out an entrapment scheme in which it used a front company, ANOM, to sell purportedly hack-proof phones to organized crime syndicates and then used those phones to spy on them as they planned illegal drug shipments, plotted robberies and put out contracts for killings using those boobytrapped phones.

  All told, the FBI intercepted 27 million messages over the course of 18 months.

  What this means is that the FBI was also illegally spying on individuals using those encrypted phones who may not have been involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.

  Even reading a newspaper article is now enough to get you flagged for surveillance by the FBI. The agency served a subpoena on USA Today / Gannett to provide the internet addresses and mobile phone information for everyone who read a news story online on a particular day and time about the deadly shooting of FBI agents.

  This is the danger of allowing the government to carry out widespread surveillance, sting and entrapment operations using dubious tactics that sidestep the rule of law: “we the people” become suspects and potential criminals, while government agents, empowered to fight crime using all means at their disposal, become indistinguishable from the corrupt forces they seek to vanquish.  

  To go after terrorists, they become terrorists. To go after drug smugglers, they become drug smugglers. To go after thieves, they become thieves.

  For instance, when the FBI raided a California business that was suspected of letting drug dealers anonymously stash guns, drugs and cash in its private vaults, agents seized the contents of all the  safety deposit boxes and filed forfeiture motions to keep the contents, which include millions of dollars’ worth of valuables owned by individuals not accused of any crime whatsoever.

  It’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves), a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens), or if we’ve gone straight to an idiocracy.  

  This certainly isn’t a constitutional democracy, however.

  Some days, it feels like the FBI is running its own crime syndicate complete with mob rule and mafia-style justice.

  In addition to creating certain crimes in order to then “solve” them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law, “including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies,” in exchange for their cooperation on other fronts.

  USA Today estimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day (5600 crimes a year). Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums: one particularly unsavory fellow, later arrested for attempting to run over a police officer, was actually paid $85,000 for his help laying the trap for an entrapment scheme.

  In a stunning development reported by The Washington Post, a probe into misconduct by an FBI agent resulted in the release of at least a dozen convicted drug dealers from prison.

  In addition to procedural misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, the FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, and harassment.

  For example, the Associated Press lodged a complaint with the Dept. of Justice after learning that FBI agents created a fake AP news story and emailed it, along with a clickable link, to a bomb threat suspect in order to implant tracking technology onto his computer and identify his location. Lambasting the agency, AP attorney Karen Kaiser railed, “The FBI may have intended this false story as a trap for only one person. However, the individual could easily have reposted this story to social networks, distributing to thousands of people, under our name, what was essentially a piece of government disinformation.”

  Then again, to those familiar with COINTELPRO, an FBI program created to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize” groups and individuals the government considers politically objectionable, it should come as no surprise that the agency has mastered the art of government disinformation.

  The FBI has been particularly criticized in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks for targeting vulnerable individuals and not only luring them into fake terror plots but actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing them for their so-called terrorist plotting. This is what the FBI characterizes as “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions.”

  Another fallout from 9/11, National Security Letters, one of the many illicit powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, allows the FBI to secretly demand that banks, phone companies, and other businesses provide them with customer information and not disclose the demands. An internal audit of the agency found that the FBI practice of issuing tens of thousands of NSLs every year for sensitive information such as phone and financial records, often in non-emergency cases, is riddled with widespread violations.

  The FBI’s surveillance capabilities, on a par with the National Security Agency, boast a nasty collection of spy tools ranging from Stingray devices that can track the location of cell phones to Triggerfish devices which allow agents to eavesdrop on phone calls. 

  In one case, the FBI actually managed to remotely reprogram a “suspect’s” wireless internet card so that it would send “real-time cell-site location data to Verizon, which forwarded the data to the FBI.”

  The FBI has also repeatedly sought to expand its invasive hacking powers to allow agents to hack into any computer, anywhere in the world.

  Indeed, for years now, the U.S. government has been creating what one intelligence insider referred to as a cyber-army capable of offensive attacks. As Reuters reported back in 2013:

  Even as the U.S. government confronts rival powers over widespread Internet espionage, it has become the biggest buyer in a burgeoning gray market where hackers and security firms sell tools for breaking into computers. The strategy is spurring concern in the technology industry and intelligence community that Washington is in effect encouraging hacking and failing to disclose to software companies and customers the vulnerabilities exploited by the purchased hacks. That’s because U.S. intelligence and military agencies aren’t buying the tools primarily to fend off attacks. Rather, they are using the tools to infiltrate computer networks overseas, leaving behind spy programs and cyber-weapons that can disrupt data or damage systems.

  As part of this cyberweapons programs, government agencies such as the NSA have been stockpiling all kinds of nasty malware, viruses and hacking tools that can “steal financial account passwords, turn an iPhone into a listening device, or, in the case of Stuxnet, sabotage a nuclear facility.”

  In fact, the NSA was responsible for the threat posed by the “WannaCry” or “Wanna Decryptor” malware worm which—as a result of hackers accessing the government’s arsenal—hijacked more than 57,000 computers and crippled health care, communications infrastructure, logistics, and government entities in more than 70 countries.

  Mind you, the government was repeatedly warned about the dangers of using criminal tactics to wage its own cyberwars. It was warned about the consequences of blowback should its cyberweapons get into the wrong hands.

  The government chose to ignore the warnings.

  That’s exactly how the 9/11 attacks unfolded.

  First, the government helped to create the menace that was al-Qaida and then, when bin Laden had left the nation reeling in shock (despite countless warnings that fell on tone-deaf ears), it demanded—and was given—immense new powers in the form of the USA Patriot Act in order to fight the very danger it had created.

  This has become the shadow government’s modus operandi regardless of which party controls the White House: the government creates a menace—knowing full well the ramifications such a danger might pose to the public—then without ever owning up to the part it played in unleashing that particular menace on an unsuspecting populace, it demands additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threat.

  Yet the powers-that-be don’t really want us to feel safe.

  They want us cowering and afraid and willing to relinquish every last one of our freedoms in exchange for their phantom promises of security.

  As a result, it’s the American people who pay the price for the government’s insatiable greed and quest for power.

  We’re the ones to suffer the blowback.

  Blowback is a term originating from within the American Intelligence community, denoting the unintended consequences, unwanted side-effects, or suffered repercussions of a covert operation that fall back on those responsible for the aforementioned operations.

  As historian Chalmers Johnson explains, “blowback is another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.”

  Unfortunately, “we the people” are the ones who keep reaping what the government sows.

  We’re the ones who suffer every time, directly and indirectly, from the blowback.

  Suffice it to say that when and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America: how a nation that once abided by the rule of law and held the government accountable for its actions has steadily devolved into a police state where justice is one-sided, a corporate elite runs the show, representative government is a mockery, police are extensions of the military, surveillance is rampant, privacy is extinct, and the law is little more than a tool for the government to browbeat the people into compliance.

  This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

  We can persuade ourselves that life is still good, that America is still beautiful, and that “we the people” are still free. However, as science fiction writer Philip K. Dick warned, “Don’t believe what you see; it’s an enthralling—[and] destructive, evil snare. Under it is a totally different world, even placed differently along the linear axis.”

  In other words, as I point out Battlefield America: The War on the American People, all is not as it seems.

  The powers-that-be are not acting in our best interests.

  “We the people” are not free.

  The government is not our friend.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 23:30

• Visualizing The Biggest Business Risks In 2021
  Visualizing The Biggest Business Risks In 2021

  We live in an increasingly volatile world, where change is the only constant.

  Businesses, too, face rapidly changing environments and associated risks that they need to adapt to – or risk falling behind. As Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes, these can range from supply chain issues due to shipping blockages, to disruptions from natural catastrophes.

  As countries and companies continue to grapple with the effects of the pandemic, nearly 3,000 risk management experts were surveyed for the Allianz Risk Barometer, uncovering the top 10 business risks that leaders must watch out for in 2021.

  

  The Top 10 Business Risks: The Pandemic Trio Emerges

  Business Interruption tops the charts consistently as the biggest business risk. This risk has slotted into the #1 spot seven times in the last decade of the survey, showing it has been on the minds of business leaders well before the pandemic began.

  However, that is not to say that the pandemic hasn’t made awareness of this risk more acute. In fact, 94% of surveyed companies reported a COVID-19 related supply chain disruption in 2020.

  

  Pandemic Outbreak, naturally, has climbed 15 spots to become the second-most significant business risk. Even with vaccine roll-outs, the uncontrollable spread of the virus and new variants remain a concern.

  The third most prominent business risk, Cyber Incidents, are also on the rise. Global cybercrime already causes a $1 trillion drag on the economy—a 50% jump from just two years ago. In addition, the pandemic-induced rush towards digitalization leaves businesses increasingly susceptible to cyber incidents.

  Other Socio-Economic Business Risks

  The top three risks mentioned above are considered the “pandemic trio”, owing to their inextricable and intertwined effects on the business world. However, these next few notable business risks are also not far behind.

  Globally, GDP is expected to recover by +4.4% in 2021, compared to the -4.5% contraction from 2020. These Market Developments may also see a short-term 2 percentage point increase in GDP growth estimates in the event of rapid and successful vaccination campaigns.

  In the long term, however, the world will need to contend with a record of $277 trillion worth of debt, which may potentially affect these economic growth projections. Rising insolvency rates also remain a key post-COVID concern.

  Persisting traditional risks such as Fires and Explosions are especially damaging for manufacturing and industry. For example, the August 2020 Beirut explosion caused $15 billion in damages.

  What’s more, Political Risks And Violence have escalated in number, scale, and duration worldwide in the form of civil unrest and protests. Such disruption is often underestimated, but insured losses can add up into the billions.

  No Such Thing as a Risk-Free Life

  The risks that businesses face depend on a multitude of factors, from political (in)stability and growing regulations to climate change and macroeconomic shifts.

  Will a post-pandemic world accentuate these global business risks even further, or will something entirely new rear its head?

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 23:00

• China Has Become A "Prison": Beijing Beefs Up Security Ahead Of Centennial Celebration
  China Has Become A “Prison”: Beijing Beefs Up Security Ahead Of Centennial Celebration

  Authored by Winnie Han and Jennifer Zeng via The Epoch Times,

  Chinese authorities are ramping up security measures around the country, especially in the capital city of Beijing, ahead of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) centennial celebration on July 1.

  

  One Chinese citizen said China has been turned into a “prison.”

  The 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP will be a grand occasion and Chinese leader Xi Jinping will deliver a speech, authorities announced on March 23.

  Prior to the announcement, the CCP has implemented a series of strict controls in order to “maintain social stability,” which is the term used by the regime to justify its totalitarian rule in China.

  On March 20, 18 departments, including the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the Central Propaganda Department, and the Central Committee of Political and Legal Affairs, jointly launched a three-and-a-half-month special campaign to suppress “illegal social organizations.” State-run media Xinhua reported that over 500 “illegal social organizations” were identified and placed under investigation.

  On May 24, the Tiananmen District Management Committee announced that from May 25 to July 1, Tiananmen Square and the surrounding areas would be closed for “construction” for the grand celebration; from June 23 to July 1, Tiananmen Square would be closed.

  On May 31, the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau announced that the automatic renewal extension of the Beijing Residence Permit and the Beijing Residence Registration Card would be discontinued from June 1.

  The security bureau said that residents from other cities must apply for the extension of their residence permit (card). Otherwise, the permit would be suspended if it was overdue for one month and cancelled if it was overdue for six months. This move would make it more difficult for non-permanent Beijing residents to stay and live in the city.

  On June 11, the Beijing Municipal Government issued a flying ban from June 13 to July 1. Nine districts, including Dongcheng, Xicheng, Chaoyang, Haidian, Fengtai, Shijingshan, Fangshan, Tongzhou and Daxing, would be designated as “restricted flying zones.” All flying objects, including doves and drones, are prohibited. In Beijing, doves are usually raised as pets and kept indoors.

  Mr. Wang, a Shanghai resident, told The Epoch Times that China is like a “prison” with total surveillance of the public. “I saw several petitioners, and they were stopped before they reached Beijing.” Petitioners are citizens who have grievances that they wish to bring up to the central authorities.

  He said, “Notices have been posted on the internet. Now [the CCP needs to] maintain stability. Don’t go to Beijing. Trains, planes, highways, and cell phones are all controlled. Layers of layers of security. Cameras are everywhere. Where can you go? It is useless to go anywhere, they will stop you halfway. Now (in Beijing) even pigeons are banned from flying, all flying objects are banned. It feels like an invisible net is in the air and on land, and nobody can escape.”

  An anonymous source in China provided a video to The Epoch Times showing six security guards inside a moving bus in Beijing. The guards were wearing red armbands that contained a device, which monitored the movement of every passenger.

  Suppressing Dissidents

  Prior to the 32nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4, authorities have been arresting dissidents or forcing them to leave the city since the end of May. The 1989 student-led pro-democracy protest movement is a sensitive topic in China and the CCP denies that it violently suppressed the protesters. Unnamed sources within the CCP said that at least 10,000 people were killed that day, according to declassified British cable and declassified U.S. documents.

  Pro-democracy activists Zhang Yi, Zhu Tao, and Li Yong in Wuhan city were forced “to travel” to other places so that they wouldn’t be able to organize activities, or post comments on social media to commemorate the victims of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

  Dissidents including Zhang Wuzhou and Wang Aizhong in Guangzhou city, Chen Siming in Hunan Province, and Yang Shaozheng in Guizhou city were arrested around the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.

  Wang Aizhong was very active on Twitter and often criticized the Chinese authorities. He was arrested on May 28. His wife Wang Henan posted a letter on Chinese social media on May 30, calling for his release.

  Zhang Wuzhou was arrested after he put up a banner in public that read, “Don’t forget June 4.”

  

  A screenshot of Zhang Wuzhou from Weiquanwang’s (Rights Defense Network’s) blog. (Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

  Chen Siming was also arrested on June 5 for posting a photo of himself holding up a sign that read, “Commemorating the 31st Anniversary of June 4,” from last year.

  

  A screenshot of Chen Siming from Weiquanwang’s (Rights Defense Network’s) blog. (Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

  Beijing dissidents, including Cha Jianguo and Hu Jia, were taken out of the city by authorities before June 4.

  U.S.-based China affairs commentator Tang Jingyuan told The Epoch Times that the Chinese regime is carrying out a high-profile centennial celebration because the CCP needs to use this opportunity to exaggerate its so-called “contributions” to China and the world, and to create a softer image for the international community.

  Dr. Qin Jin, president of the Australian Democratic China Front, said that the CCP is already on a road that leads to destruction and it has to keep “making noise” in order to embolden itself.

  He told The Epoch Times, “Now that the CCP’s international environment has worsened, it needs to put on a show in front of the Chinese people to achieve the political effect of deceiving them, even though it is already in dire straits.”

  “It [the CCP] started a pandemic that spread around the world, temporarily alleviating the Trump administration’s countermeasures and strikes against it, but leaving the world devastated. Perhaps the world will learn from the pain and hold Beijing accountable. So, the CCP was just drinking poison to quench its thirst,” Qin stated.

  Despite the regime’s efforts, Qin said that the so-called centennial celebration will not be well received by the world because more people are realizing the “evil” nature of the CCP.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 22:30

• Rogue Hotspot Can "Permanently" Break iPhone WiFi Functionality 
  Rogue Hotspot Can “Permanently” Break iPhone WiFi Functionality 

  Security researcher Carl Schou discovered a bug in Apple’s iOS that can disable an iPhone’s ability to connect to hotspots after joining a WiFi with the SSID “%p%s%s%s%s%n.”

  Schou tweeted, “after joining my personal WiFi with the SSID “%p%s%s%s%s%n”, my iPhone permanently disabled its WiFi functionality. Neither rebooting nor changing SSID fixes it :~).” 

  After joining my personal WiFi with the SSID “%p%s%s%s%s%n”, my iPhone permanently disabled it’s WiFi functionality. Neither rebooting nor changing SSID fixes it :~) pic.twitter.com/2eue90JFu3

  — Carl Schou (@vm_call) June 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Schou told BleepingComputer that he conducted the test on an iPhone XS, running iOS version 14.4.2. BleepingComputer confirmed the test on an iPhone running iOS 14.6. They said the iPhone’s wireless functionality would break after connecting to %p%s%s%s%s%n.

  What this looks like is a format string bug issue, which is unusual these days. After the iPhone connected to the strangely worded hotspot, the smartphone failed at connecting to other hotspots. Android devices connected to the hotspot but didn’t experience the same problem as iPhones.

  Looks like My WiFi SSID found an iOS 0day. Photo credit to @wr3nchsr and @pieceofsummer pic.twitter.com/93gAnwabVz

  — Carl Schou (@vm_call) June 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  A bug like this could be exploited by criminal actors who create unsecured WiFi hotspots called %p%s%s%s%s%n in a populated area and would wreak havoc on iPhone users trying to connect. 

  BleepingComputer says this is a “string formatting vulnerability.” 

  Other security researchers who saw Schou’s tweet and analyzed the crash report believe that an input parsing issue likely causes this bug.

  When a string with “%” signs exists in WiFi hotspot names, iOS may be mistakenly interpreting the letters following “%” as string-format specifiers when they are not.

  In C and C-style languages, string format specifiers have a special meaning and are processed by the language compiler as a variable name or a command rather than just text.

  For example, the following printf command does not actually print the “%n” character but stores the number of characters (10) preceding %n into the variable “c.”

  The “%n” is merely a format specifier and not an actual text string. As such, the output of the following line will simply be “geeks for geeks,” with no mention of “%n.”

  The good news is there’s a fix that requires a reset of iOS network settings. 

  While this bug is not widely known yet, imagine if malicious actors set up fake hotspots across dense metro areas and caused a WiFi crisis among iPhone users… Apple should really look into this bug. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 22:00

• 94% Of Americans Oppose Big Pharma's Control Over Global Vaccine Supply: Poll
  94% Of Americans Oppose Big Pharma’s Control Over Global Vaccine Supply: Poll

  Authored by Kenny Stancil via CommonDreams.org,

  A new poll released Friday found that a whopping 94% of adults in the US do not want pharmaceutical corporations to control the global supply of Covid-19 vaccines, lending additional support to international demands for achieving universal access to inoculation through more knowledge sharing, technology transfer, and public production of doses.

  That 94% figure includes respondents who expressed no preference, and it revealed a strong bipartisan consensus, with 96% of Biden voters and 92% of Trump voters in agreement. The online survey was conducted by YouGov between June 9-10 on behalf of the Medicine Equality Now! campaign, which seeks to dismantle the intellectual property (IP) barriers that cause millions of unnecessary deaths per year by undermining equal access to lifesaving medicines.

  

  While pollsters found that the vast majority of Americans are unaware of the extent to which pharmaceutical giants exercise monopoly powers over vaccine manufacturing and underestimate how much money a few private companies have made from selling doses, they also discovered that 50% of the nation’s adults—including half of Trump voters—consider it unacceptable that Big Pharma has made substantial profits from vaccines developed using public funding.

  “The majority of the U.S. public is not satisfied with the current system of vaccine access,” Gregg Gonsalves, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and global health activist, said in as statement. “As Americans, we know how pharmaceutical companies operate, prioritizing their profits ahead of saving lives.”

  “More alarmingly,” Gonsalves noted, “many are simply not aware that the world’s recovery from this pandemic is controlled by a small number of pharmaceutical corporations—the exact system they’ve said they don’t want.”

  Only 20% of the U.S. public thought that pharmaceutical companies wield the most control over global vaccine supply, the survey found.

  Moreover, just over a quarter of respondents (26%) were aware that Big Pharma had brought in “very large” profits since the start of the vaccine rollout.

  According to the poll:

  • 66% believed the pharmaceutical companies had made a profit of some kind;
  • 12% believed the profits were “fairly small”;
  • 28% believed the profits were “fairly large”; and
  • 26% believed the profits were “very large.”

  Meanwhile, Corporate Watch estimated earlier this year that Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer, respectively, will make profits of $8 billion and $4 billion from Covid-19 vaccines this year alone, and The Intercept reported that executives are planning to hike prices on doses “in the near future.”

  

  According to the survey, a majority of U.S. adults want either the World Health Organization (WHO)—31%—or national governments—24%—to have the most control over global vaccine supply.

  “Even in countries where the vaccine rollout is at an advanced stage, the public still has no desire for profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies to control the world’s supply of medicines,” Solange Baptiste, executive director of the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), said in a statement.

  Read the rest of the full report here.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 21:30

• Ron Paul Recaps Biden-Putin Summit: Why Media & Politicos Get It All Wrong
  Ron Paul Recaps Biden-Putin Summit: Why Media & Politicos Get It All Wrong

  Most of the media and politicians of all stripes were apoplectic that President Biden sat down with his Russian counterpart without wrestling him to the ground or pounding him.

  The reaction by US elites – from Trump to CNN – to the largely successful summit tells us everything that’s wrong with US foreign policy. We also highlight that Biden does say the stupidest thing ever at the summit. Watch the latest Liberty Report…

  “It did not look confrontational, but that doesn’t mean everybody was pleased. I think I was reassured that things weren’t deteriorating and that there’s going to be an exchange of missiles or something like that,” Paul begins in his commentary. 

  “Most people were fairly well-behaved, but the frustration level [on the part of]… the military-industrial complex: ‘if you don’t have confrontation how are you gonna get these budgets passed?'”

  “This was designed for confrontation,” former congressman Paul noted, but the media and defense contractor industry was no doubt disappointed at the noticeable lack of fireworks at the summit. 

  Instead, the two sides agreed to restore each’s ambassadors once again. “I would say that is progress – that’s talking to people,” Paul noted, to the deep frustration of the hawks on both sides of the aisle. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 21:00

• 30Y Treasury Yield Tumbles Below 2.00%, Japanese Stocks Plunge
  30Y Treasury Yield Tumbles Below 2.00%, Japanese Stocks Plunge

  Short-dated Treasury yields are extending their rise from Friday’s bloodbath as the collapse of the long-end of the term structure accelerates in early Asia trading.

  2Y is back above the Fed Funds rate…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  and 30Y yields are back below 2.00%…

  

  … for the first time since March…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  10Y yields are at their lowest since early March…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  And Japanese equity markets are none too happy with Powell’s policy error malarkey…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  As Lance Roberts noted earlier, there have been ZERO times in history when the Fed started a rate hiking campaign that did not lead to a negative outcome. We suggest this time won’t be any different.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 20:56

• "Just Blind Chance": The Rising Call For "Random Selection" For College Admissions
  “Just Blind Chance”: The Rising Call For “Random Selection” For College Admissions

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Random selection is not generally an approach that most people opt for in the selection of doctors or even restaurants or a movie. However, it appears to be the new model for some in higher education. Former Barnard College mathematics professor Cathy O’Neil has written a column calling for “random selection” of all college graduates to guarantee racial diversity. It is ever so simple:

  “Never mind optional standardized tests. If you show interest, your name goes in a big hat.”

  She is not the only one arguing for blind or random admissions.

  

  Recently, University of California President Janet Napolitano announced that the entire system will no longer base admissions on standardized tests — joining a “test-blind” admissions movement nationally. Others have denounced standardized testing as vehicles for white supremacy. Education officials like Alison Collins, vice president of the San Francisco Board of Education, have declared meritocracy itself to be racist. There is a growing criticism that the problem with higher education is that it relies on merit rather than status as the driving criteria for admissions.

  O’Neil and others are arguing not just for blind but actually random selection to achieve true diversity. O’Neil argues that it would also “take the pressure off students to conform to the prevailing definition of the ideal candidate” and allow them “to be kids again, smoking pot and getting laid in between reading Dostoyevsky and writing bad poetry.”

  Others have called for purely random selection. In 2019, the liberal New America foundation argued that highly selective colleges and universities should admit students by lottery. Amy Laitinen, Claire McCann, and Rachel Fishman  argued that not only should admissions be random but schools “would lose all eligibility not only to Title IV aid but also to federal research dollars.” They argued that this “This would do away with admissions preferences that overwhelmingly favor white and wealthy applicants, including for athletes and legacies.”

  In her column, O’Neil admits that there is a “downside” like the fact that “applications to the most selective colleges would soar, causing acceptance rates to plunge and leaving the ‘strongest’ candidates with little chance of getting into their chosen schools.” However, she treats the downside of eliminating the value of actually doing well in high school and tests as just a question of privilege:

  “The kids who struggled to get perfect grades, who spent their high school years getting really good at obscure yet in-demand sports, the legacies and the offspring of big donors, would lose their advantages.”

  In an earlier column, I noted that the move by California to get rid of standardized tests occurred after California voters rejected an expensive campaign to reintroduce affirmative action in college admissions. The Supreme Court is also considering whether to take the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court this week asked the Biden Administration to take a position in the case involving allegations that Harvard has discriminated against Asian applicants. Litigants cite a study finding that Asian Americans needed SAT scores that were about 140 points higher than white students; the gap with admitted African American and Hispanic students is even greater.

  The case could allow for clarity on the issue after years of conflicting 5-4 decisions that have ruled both for and against such race criteria admissions. There is a concern among universities that the Court could be moving toward a clear decision against the use of race as a criterion. Even the author of the 2003 majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, said she expected “that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was roughly 25 years ago.

  I previously noted:

  “In the Harvard case, the scores are particularly important because the litigants allege that subjective factors were systemically used to disfavor them on issues such as likability and personality. While the lower courts ruled for Harvard, the trial judge did note that there may have been bias in favor of minority admissions and encouraged Harvard to deal with such “implicit bias” while monitoring ‘any significant race-related statistical disparities in the rating process.’ But what if there are no ‘statistical disparities’ because there are no objective statistics?”

  O’Neil argues for blind and random selection precisely because it would prevent such court review.

  “Colleges wouldn’t have to worry about fighting claims of racial discrimination in the Supreme Court because by construction the admissions process would be nondiscriminatory. No more “soft” criteria. No more biased tests. Just blind chance.”

  Blind selection is the final default position for many schools. Universities have spent decades working around court decisions limiting the reliance on race as an admissions criterion.  Many still refuse to disclose the full data on scores and grades for admitted students. If faced with a new decision further limiting (or entirely eliminating) race as a criterion, blind selection would effectively eliminate any basis for judicial review.

  It would also destroy any value for the students to work to achieve greater achievement in math, science, and other subjects. O’Neil is right. They would be free to spend their time “smoking pot and getting laid in between reading Dostoyevsky and writing bad poetry.” The new model for admissions would range from Hunter Thompson to Hunter Biden.

  The push for blind or random admissions is the ultimate sign of the decadence of society. What O’Neil is describing is a system designed for the intellectual dilettante. Of course, countries like China are moving to dominate the world economy with kids who are not focusing on good sex and bad poetry. Higher education has long been based on intellectual achievement and discovery. Admission to higher ranked schools has been a key motivating factor for millions of students, including the children of many first generation Americans. Their achievement has translated into national advancement in science and the economy. It has served to bring greater opportunities and growth for all Americans.

  Now, recognition of such achievement is rejected by writers like O’Neil as “perpetuating the privileges of wealth” and preventing true racial diversity in our schools. So we will eliminate merit-based admissions entirely and reduce higher education to a lottery system based on pure luck.

  And, when the world discovers that bad poetry holds the key to the new global economy, we will once again rise as a world power.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 20:30

• Petitions To Keep Bezos From Returning To Earth Next Month Signed By Over 45,000 People
  Petitions To Keep Bezos From Returning To Earth Next Month Signed By Over 45,000 People

  Over 45,000 people have signed petitions calling to prevent Jeff Bezos from returning to earth next month, when the billionaire founder of Amazon.com is set to ride his phallic ‘New Shepard’ rocket into space along with his brother, Mark and an unidentified passenger who paid $28 million to join them.

  

  “Billionaire’s should not exist…on earth, or in space, but should they decide the latter they should stay there,” reads one petition posted to change.org, which has received over 26,000 signatures as of this writing – many of whom let their feelings be known:

  

  Another change.org petition with over 18,500 signatures reads: “Jeff Bezos is actually Lex Luthor, disguised as the supposed owner of a super successful online retail store. However, he’s actually an evil overlord hellbent on global domination.”

  “Jeff has worked with the Epsteins and the Knights Templar, as well as the Free Masons to gain control over the whole world. He’s also in bed with the flat earth deniers; it’s the only way they’ll allow him to leave the atmosphere,” the petition continues.

  Bezos just can’t seem to catch a break these days.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 20:00

• Why Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Critical Race Theory
  Why Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Critical Race Theory

  Authored by Mark Glennon via Wirepoints.org,

  Stories across Illinois and most of America now report furious parents standing up against what’s bundled under the term “Critical Race Theory,” or CRT, widely taught in K-12 schools.

  Those who know what CRT is don’t like it. A new Economist/YouGov poll found opposition beating support by 58% to 38%. And opponents feel strongly. Those with “very unfavorable” views of CRT outnumber those with “very favorable” views” by 53% to 25%. Opposition is even more intense when specific tenets of CRT are polled.

  

  What is CRT? Why the intense opposition? Does only the “right wing” oppose its teachings, as Gov. JB Pritzker claimed on Wednesday?

  Call it “antiracism,” “culturally responsive teaching,” “equity” or “wokeness” if you want; dissecting the differences would be quibbling.

  Here are the specific teachings they have mostly in common that are generating the rage:

  • Individuals are forever defined by race, not character. CRT expressly rejects notions of color blindness and the melting pot.

  • America is systemically racist and all whites are racists or at least implicitly biased.

  • The Constitution and the American system of government were designed to perpetuate slavery and oppression.

  • Equality of opportunity means nothing; only equality of results matters.

  • Individuals are either oppressors or victims; there’s nothing in between.

  • America’s true history is told by “The 1619 Project,” which holds that America’s real birth date was 1619 when the first slaves arrived, and that it is “out of slavery – and the anti‐​black racism it required” – that “nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional” grew.

  • Capitalism is evil. “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist,” says Ibram X. Kendi, a leading CRT proponent.

  That’s probably enough to insult the core values and common sense of most Americans, but three overarching themes in CRT add to the fury.

  First it’s taught as incontrovertible truth.

  “This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory,” an important distinction Andrew Sullivan describes in a superb, new article.

  “And this is why — crucially — it will suppress any other way of seeing the world — because any other way, by definition, is merely perpetuating oppression,” Sullivan wrote. “As Kendi constantly reminds us, it is either/or. An antiracist cannot exist with a liberalism that perpetuates racism. And it’s always the liberalism that has to go.”

  

  CRT champion Ibram X. Kendi

  Second, it is Marxist in its roots and a broad assault on most everything about classical liberalism.

  “Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law,” says a detailed look at CRT’s origins.

  Third, there’s little hope for rational debate with CRT supporters.

  Their standard claim is that opposition means refusal to recognize racism and the history of slavery. There would be no controversy if that were true, and the polls demolish claims like Pritzker’s that only the “right wing” is opposed, or “ultra-conservatives” as NBC and many others have claimed.

  The Illinois State Board of Education was particularly deceitful in defending its “culturally responsive” teaching standards. “The standards do not impact teachers licensure or evaluation,” it wrote, yet that’s precisely the object of its new rule. And its standards aren’t about curriculum, ISBE falsely claimed.

  The national press, as you’d expect, suppresses opinion opposed to CRT. Take a look at the ever-growing compendium of black scholars and activists who hold different views, compiled at FreeBlackThought.com. They are dead to the world as most of the MSM sees things.

  *  *  *

  Illinois is where the first skirmish occurred in a school in what is now a national battle. Four years ago, a rather small group of parents objected to the narrow, radical curriculum of New Trier High School’s “Seminar Day” on race – “Racial Indoctrination Day,” as the Wall Street Journal called it. That was before terms like “woke” became a thing and before Critical Race Theory became the commonly used label, but the issues were largely the same as today: Dissenting parents objected to what they saw as authoritarianism in the school’s exclusion of alternate viewpoints.

  The parents lost. New Trier refused to include those alternate viewpoints.

  They lost, in part, because many angry parents were afraid to speak up. They feared retribution from those who labeled all critics as racists.

  But national coverage of that story and more alarming ones ensued. Having seen the reality of what CRT means to classrooms, its critics are now the majority.

  Gone is any excuse for silence. CRT is in our schools due only to a loud and aggressive minority concentrated in today’s political, educational and media establishments. It will be driven into the obscurity it deserves if the majority continues to speak up.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 19:30

• Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In "Heat-Seeking Missiles": Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis
  Powell Just Launched $2 Trillion In “Heat-Seeking Missiles”: Zoltan Explains How The Fed Started The Next Repo Crisis

  Last week, amid the fire and brimstone surrounding the market’s shocked response to the Fed’s unexpected hawkish pivot, we noted that there were two tangible, if less noted changes: the Fed adjusted the two key “administered” rates, raising both the IOER and RRP rates by 5 basis points (as correctly predicted by Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wrightson, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo while Citi, Oxford Economics, Jefferies, Credit Suisse, Standard Chartered, BMO were wrong in predicting no rate change), in an effort to push the Effective Fed Funds rate higher and away from its imminent rendezvous with 0%.

  

  What does this mean? As Curvature Securities repo guru, Scott Skyrm wrote last week, “clearly the Fed intends to move overnight rates above zero and drain the RRP  facility of cash.” Unfortunately, the end result would be precisely the opposite of what the Fed had wanted to achieve.

  But what does this really mean for overnight rates and RRP volume? As Skyrm further noted, the increase in the IOER should pull the daily fed funds rate 5 basis points higher and, in turn, put upward pressure on Repo GC. Combined with the 5 basis point increase in RRP, GC should move a solid 5 basis points higher, which it has.

  

  The problem, as Skyrm warned, is that the Fed’s technical adjustment would do nothing to ease the RRP volume:

  When market Repo rates were at 0% and the RRP rate was at zero, ~$500 billion went into the RRP. Well, if both market Repo rates and the RRP rate are 5 basis points higher, there’s no reason to pull cash out of the RRP. For example, if GC rates moved to .05% and the RRP rate stayed at zero, investor preferences to invest at a higher rate would remove cash from the RRP.

  Bottom line: with both market rates and RRP at .05%, there’s really no economic incentive for cash investors to move cash to the Repo market. Or, as we summarized, “the Fed’s rate change may have zero impact on the Fed’s reverse repo facility, or the record half a trillion in cash parked there.”

  In retrospect, boy was that an understatement, because just one day later the already record usage of the Fed’s Reverse Repo facility spiked by a record 50%, exploding to a staggering $756 billion (it closed Friday at $747 billion) as the GSEs.

  

  Needless to say, flooding the Fed’s RRP facility and sterilizing reserves is hardly what the Fed had intended, and as Credit Suisse’s own repo guru (and former NY Fed staffer) Zoltan Pozsar wrote in his post-mortem, “the re-priced RRP facility will become a problem for the banking system fast: the banking system is going from being asset constrained (deposits flooding in, but nowhere to lend them but to the Fed), to being liability constrained (deposits slipping away and nowhere to replace them but in the money market).”

  What he means by that is that whereas previously the RRP rate of 0.00% did not reward allocation of inert, excess reserves but merely provided a place to park them, now that the Fed is providing a generous yield pick up compared to rates offered by trillions in Bills, we are about to see a sea-change in the overnight, money-market, as trillions in capital reallocate away from traditional investments and into the the Fed’s RRP.

  In other words, as Pozsar puts it, “the RRP facility started to sterilize reserves… with more to come.” And just as Deutsche Bank explained why the Fed’s signaling was an r* policy error, to Pozsar, the Fed also made a policy error – only this time with its technical rates – by steriling reserves because “it’s one thing to raise the rate on the RRP facility when an increase was not strictly speaking necessary, and it’s another to raise it “unduly” high – as one money fund manager put it, “yesterday we could not even get a basis points a year; to get endless paper at five basis points from the most trusted counterparty is a dream come true.”

  He’s right: while 0bps may have been viewed by many as too low, it was hardly catastrophic for now (Credit Suisse was one of those predicting no administered rate hike), 5bps is too generous, according to Pozsar who warns that the new reverse repo rate will upset the state of “singularity” and “like heat-seeking missiles, money market investors move hundreds of billions, making sharp, 90º turns hunting for even a basis point of yield at the zero bound – at 5 bps, money funds have an incentive to trade out of all their Treasury bills and park cash at the RRP facility.”

  Indeed, as shown below, bills yield less than 5 bps out to 6 months, and money funds have over $2 trillion of bills. They got an the incentive to sell, while others have the incentive to buy: institutions whose deposits have been “tolerated” by banks until now earning zero interest have an incentive to harvest the 0-5 bps range the bill curve has to offer. Putting your cash at a basis point in bills is better than deposits at zero. So the sterilization of reserves begins, and so the o/n RRP facility turns from a largely passive tool that provided an interest rate floor to the deposits that large banks have been pushing away, into an active tool that “sucks” the deposits away that banks decided to retain.

  

  To help readers visualize what is going on, the Credit Suisse strategist suggest the following “extreme” thought experiment: most of the “Covid-19” deposits currently with banks go into the bill market where rates are better. Money funds sell bills to institutional investors that currently keep their cash at banks, and money funds swap bills for o/n RRPs. Said (somewhat) simply, while previously the Fed provided banks with a convenient place to park reserves, it now will actively drain reserves to the point where we may end up with another 2019-style repo crisis, as most financial institutions suddenly find themsleves with too few intraday reserves, forcing them to use the Fed’s other funding facilities (such as FX swap lines) to remain consistently solvent.

  This process is not overnight. It will take a few weeks to observe the fallout from the Fed’s reserve sterilization.

  And here is why the problem is similar to the repo crisis of 2019: soon we will find that while cash-rich banks can handle the outflows, some bond-heavy banks cannot. As a result, Zoltan predicts that next “we will notice that some banks (those who can not handle outflows) are borrowing advances from FHLBs, and cash-rich banks stop lending in the FX swap market as the RRP facility pulled reserves away from them and the Fed has to re-start the FX swap lines to offset.”

  Bottom line: whereas previously we saw Libor-OIS collapse, this key funding spread will have to widen from here, unless the Fed lowers the o/n RRP rate again back to where it was before.

  Or, as Zoltan summarizes, “It’s either quantities or prices” – indeed, in 2019 the Fed chose prices over quantities, which backfired, and led to the repo crisis which ended the Fed’s hiking cycle and started “NOT QE.” While the Fed redeemed itself in February, when it expanded the usage of the RRP without making it liability-constrained as it chose quantities over prices – which worked well – last Wednesday, the Fed turned “unlimited” quantities into “money for free” and started to sterilize reserves.

  Bottom line: “we are witnessing the dealer of last resort (DoLR) learning the art of dealing, making unforced errors – if the Fed sterilizes with an overpriced o/n RRP facility, it has to be ready to add liquidity via the swap lines…”

  Translation: by paying trillions in reserves 5bps, the Fed just planted the seeds of the next liquidity crisis.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 18:47

• Homelessness Is Becoming A Crisis Of Epic Proportions In The US
  Homelessness Is Becoming A Crisis Of Epic Proportions In The US

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

  Can you imagine what it would be like to not have a home?  For many Americans, this is not something that they need to imagine because it is a daily reality.  Nobody knows for sure how many homeless individuals there are in this country, but recent estimates range from “fewer than 600,000 to more than 1.5 million people”, and everyone agrees that the number has been growing.  Even as the wealthy engage in wild bidding wars over the most desirable properties, more impoverished Americans are being forced into the streets with each passing day.  There has always been homelessness in America, but here in 2021 it is rapidly becoming a crisis of epic proportions.

  

  Ironically, the state with the worst problem is also the wealthiest state in the nation.  At least 160,000 homeless people currently live in California, although many believe that official figure is way too low.  The number of homeless in the state had been rising for years, and then the pandemic came along…

  Tent-lined streets with belongings scattered everywhere. Infected wounds with bugs living inside. A man who hasn’t showered in over a decade. An 80-year-old woman who can’t feed herself. People who ride the metro rail lines because the trains are a safer place to sleep.

  California’s homeless problem has been out of control for decades. Then came COVID-19.

  In many California cities, tent cities have seemingly popped up everywhere these days.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the number of tent encampments in San Francisco alone has grown by 70 percent during the pandemic…

  Tent encampments are typical sights under freeways and in areas such as skid row – a pocket of downtown Los Angeles known for its vast homeless population – but the pandemic, shutdowns and quarantines caused them to spread across the city. Encampments popped up in parking lots, neighborhood parks and outside schools, not only in Los Angeles but other parts of the state.

  In San Francisco alone, tent encampments grew by 70% and became more visible across the city, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

  San Francisco is one of the wealthiest cities in the entire world.

  If this is happening now, how bad will things get when the U.S. economy really starts to fall apart?

  The homelessness crisis continues to grow rapidly on the east coast as well.  In New York City, many have become concerned about the “growing presence” of the homeless in Times Square…

  An influx of homeless people into Manhattan’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood after an emergency move by New York City to ease crowding in shelters has been a fact of pandemic life for the neighborhood since last spring.

  Many of the newcomers, living in nearby hotel rooms contracted by the city, have been largely inconspicuous. But others with mental health and drug problems have become a growing presence in Hell’s Kitchen and adjacent Times Square.

  Now that the pandemic is fading, many New Yorkers are quite eager to have the homeless removed from Times Square because the tourists are starting to return.

  Needless to say, seeing hordes of homeless people laying in the streets is not good for business, and the increase in homelessness has also helped to fuel a dramatic rise in violent crime in the Times Square area…

  The police precinct that includes Times Square and many of the hotels has seen a 183 percent spike in felony assaults and 173 percent spike in robberies so far this year compared to 2020, according to NYPD data.

  As you can probably imagine, homelessness has been growing in the middle of the country too.

  In Dallas, a large homeless camp was recently removed by authorities after local residents loudly complained…

  The city of Dallas has removed a homeless camp after nearby residents complained it was putting their health and safety in jeopardy.

  While some who called the camp home say they have no place to go, neighbors are grateful the city is finally responding. The sprawling homeless encampment was covered by a canopy of trees and located behind houses along Tres Logos Lane in northeast Dallas.

  Nobody wants a homeless camp in their neighborhood, but where are those homeless people supposed to go?

  They have to sleep somewhere.

  But for now, residents of that particular neighborhood are just thrilled that those homeless people are no longer their problem.  In fact, one local resident told the press that she is so happy that they are gone that she has “chills”…

  “I am so excited, I am so happy, I have chills,” said resident Maria Sanchez. “It’s not just the homelessness that we’re talking about, its other individuals that are, you know, doing other illicit activities sketchy activities.”

  So what happens if Maria Sanchez loses her current job and starts getting behind on her rent or mortgage payments?

  Ultimately, the vast majority of Americans are just a few months away from being homeless themselves.

  In fact, now that a nationwide eviction moratorium is ending, we are being told that millions more Americans could soon be forced out into the streets…

  MILLIONS of renters face eviction as a nationwide ban is set to end in two weeks.

  It comes as 5.7million Americans – nearly 14% of all renters nationwide – had fallen behind on their rent in April.

  The study by the National Equity Atlas revealed that tenants owed nearly $20 billion in rent, with low-income people among those worst affected.

  So as bad as things are now, they could soon get a whole lot worse.

  Can you imagine what that would look like?

  Sleeping on the streets is extremely dangerous, and vast numbers of homeless people end up dying.  According to USA Today, more than 1,300 homeless people died in Los Angeles County alone in 2020…

  The crisis in California has left a trail of death.

  Some come from drug overdoses, violence or untreated illnesses that compound over time. Others come from suicide. These people die under freeways, along sidewalks and in alleys, hospitals and vehicles. More than 1,300 died last year in Los Angeles County alone. An additional 1,200 died the year before that.

  During the pandemic, the federal government has borrowed and spent trillions and trillions of dollars, and the Federal Reserve has pumped trillions and trillions of dollars into the financial system, and yet the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic food chain has gotten much, much worse.

  Something is very wrong with that picture.

  No matter what our leaders do, the homelessness crisis in this country just seems to keep escalating.  Vast numbers of our fellow citizens will be sleeping on the streets tonight, and many more will soon be joining them.

  *  *  *

  Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 18:30

• 10 Recent Examples Of Biden Blowing Up At Reporters: "The Rage Is Back"
  10 Recent Examples Of Biden Blowing Up At Reporters: “The Rage Is Back”

  Joe Biden wants reporters to stick to asking him about more simple matters like ice cream flavors. His last Wednesday “What the Hell?!” blow-up in Geneva in response to a pointed series of questions from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was but the latest in a recent history of his snapping at the press, which often involves him singling out and going after journalists personally. “What in the hell, what do you do all the time?” he shouted back at Collins while defiantly pointing his finger. He ended by telling the correspondent she’s in the “wrong business”.

  Fox News noted this weekend following his attempted apology over the incident that “While Biden often praises journalists as highly intelligent – he did so again this week – he is known for lashing out at questioners on topics he doesn’t like, notably his scandal-ridden son Hunter Biden.”

  

  Previously on the campaign trail last year he had a series of contentious and combative interactions with random citizens attending his campaign rallies and press events, the infamous “lying dog-faced pony soldier” moment being foremost among them.

  It was during the campaign last year especially that he was seen multiple times berating supporters when the questions and conversation didn’t go his way (recall too his “you’re a damn liar” moment wherein he bizarrely challenged a heavy-set man to push-ups: “look fat, here’s the deal…”). 

  While the above mentioned exchanges are perhaps more well known, Fox News over the weekend took a trip down recent memory lane, putting together clips which feature Biden specifically telling reporters off, awkward moments wherein the president often gets personal and proceeds to directly belittle them… here’s 10 such instances.

  * * *

  1) “Right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask…” he shot back in response to a question about the NY Post revelations on Hunter.

  I asked Joe Biden: What is your response to the NYPost story about your son, sir?

  He called it a “smear campaign” and then went after me. “I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.” pic.twitter.com/Eo6VD4TqxD

  — Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) October 17, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  2) A reporter offended Biden for merely doing journalism:

  “Why are you the only guy that always shouts out questions?”

  Asked Biden if he will encourage teacher unions to cooperate to get kids back in school because the COVID task force said it is safe to be in the classroom. He didn’t answer.

  “Why are you the only guy that always shouts out questions?” he said. pic.twitter.com/x2DsG5Fmgo

  — Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) November 20, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  3) Biden gets visibly angry anytime he’s asked Ukraine questions in general, particularly related to his scandal-laden son Hunter…

  WATCH: Joe Biden explodes when a reporter asks a very simple question:

  “How was your role as Vice President in charge of policy in Ukraine and your son’s job in Ukraine, how is that not a conflict of interest?”

  Biden: “I’m not going to respond to that!”

  What is he hiding? pic.twitter.com/jbycKLARhE

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 4, 2019

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  4) And who can forget the famous “you ain’t black” remarks issued to popular African American radio host Charlamagne…

  “You’ve got more questions?” Biden replied. “Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

  5) Biden is known to give a terse “C’mon man…” to express his rising anger and frustration when challenged by reporters…

  Biden, asked if 100 million vaccines within 100 days is too low of a goal, snaps: “When I announced it you all said it wasn’t possible. Gimme a break. C’mon man.” pic.twitter.com/O7n7jBOjvn

  — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  6) Some angry sarcasm in this one directed at a FOX correspondent:

  “But only you would ask that. You’re a good man, good man. Classy.”

  Doocy: Mr. Vice President I’m wondering if you have a comment on this report & court filing out of AR that your son Hunter just made you a Grandfather again.

  Biden: No that’s a private matter I have no comment. But only you would ask that. You’re a good man, good man. Classy. pic.twitter.com/FwV2sJNuHK

  — Pat Ward (@WardDPatrick) November 22, 2019

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  7) It’s not just Trump that gets into back-and-forth exchanges over crowd size and political rallies and events…

  8) Biden’s rage is back (or was it ever gone? maybe just in between bouts of sleepiness…), as was on clear display during the tail-end press conference at the Geneva summit with Putin last week.

  If only he had simply kept walking off-stage, but his temper got him first…

  “Biden was so filled with rage, he even had that nasty, bony finger out, pointing it, while demeaning her…” – Sophie O’Hara
  https://t.co/VnzjDoQ6y4

  — Wayne Dupree Media, LLC (@WayneDupreeShow) June 17, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  9) While the initial “What the Hell!” incident with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins went viral, what’s lesser known is that he again took a nasty swipe at the press pool during his attempted “apology” as be boarded Air Force One later that day…

  But then he added another zinger at a reporter who essentially repeated Collins’ question…

  10) It was a mere one month ago that Biden “jokingly” threatened to run over a journalist with a car who dared asked a question he was uncomfortable answering…

  REPORTER: Mr. President can I ask you a quick question on Israel before you drive away since it’s so important?

  BIDEN: No you can’t… not unless you get in front of the car as I step on it… I’m only teasing. pic.twitter.com/zRrXBjk7YQ

  — BG (@TheBGates) May 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As many have pointed out, the President of the United States wants the press to stick to banal questions about what ice cream flavors he likes. And too often the compliant mainstream networks are only too happy to play along:

  “Mr. President, what did you order?” was the first question shouted by a reporter as Biden licked a cone at Honey Hut Ice Cream in Cleveland, Ohio.

  “Chocolate chocolate chip,” the commander in chief replied, to oohs and aahs from the fawning press pack.

  #TodayInJournalism

  Here’s a 3-minute MSNBC segment on Joe Biden eating ice cream pic.twitter.com/4bk5PK8CBo

  — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 28, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 18:00

• Why Net-Zero Is A Suicide Mission For Canada
  Why Net-Zero Is A Suicide Mission For Canada

  Authored by Fergus Hodgson, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

  Canada’s plan for net-zero “greenhouse-gas emissions” by 2050 will come home to roost. Grandstanding has consequences, and in Bill C-12 we are witnessing the legislation to give it teeth. The demonized energy sector appears impotent to resist this attack and is outwardly embracing the idea, presumably to placate regulators and the woke mob.

  

  Grandiose promises, for which the bills come over in decades, are a natural product of election-minded politicians. Their strategy is to garner positive press while leaving someone else to deal with the difficult task of making the promises happen, including paying for them. This is how, for example, unfunded liabilities became prevalent in Canadian governments at all levels (pdf).

  Just as Millennials and Generation Z will have to pick up the tab for Ponzi schemes such as the Canada Pension Plan, so too will they have to pay for pie-in-the-sky environmentalism. The price will come in the form of fewer jobs available and higher energy prices, which in turn raise the prices of almost everything in the economy.

  To rub salt into the wound, Canadians can expect an array of taxes that will manipulate their behavior and pay for subsidies to inflate so-called green energies beyond what’s warranted by their value to consumers. In December 2020, for example, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced CA$3 billion ($2.4 billion) for a Net Zero Accelerator Fund “to rapidly expedite decarbonization projects with large emitters, scale-up clean technology, and accelerate Canada’s industrial transformation across all sectors.”

  What It Would Take

  Achieving net-zero by 2050, akin to the Green New Deal in the United States, would require a colossal energy transition and use reduction. In addition, it would require sophisticated efforts to capture greenhouse gases on site and/or pull them from the air and inject them underground. The latter is a form of offset, one of the few ways to offset emissions that’s quantifiable and not easily gamed.

  Defining and measuring offsets tends to be difficult because we don’t know people’s actions in the absence of payments. Did they change their behavior in a long-term fashion, or did they simply collect rewards? According to Mark Jaccard, a Simon Fraser University professor and the author of “The Citizen’s Guide to Climate Success,” the definition of offsets is slippery. Jaccard is an advocate for direct citizen action and policies toward emissions reductions. However, he asserts that if we were to only fund “a true offset”—such as direct-air capture—that would raise the cost from $8 to about $200 per ton of carbon dioxide.

  “When a given jurisdiction is trying to reduce emissions,” he counsels, “don’t allow offsets to be more than a small percentage of the policy tools that you use to reduce your emissions.”

  Jaccard and institutional purveyors of net-zero by 2050, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the World Economic Forum (WEF), don’t shy away from admitting the gravity of the change necessary. The IEA’s 2020 report, “Achieving Net-Zero Emissions by 2050,” said it “would require a far-reaching set of actions going above and beyond the already ambitious measures in the [Sustainable Development Scenario]. A large number of unparalleled changes across all parts of the energy sector would need to be realized simultaneously, at a time when the world is trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

  That last element is crucial. The Canadian economy, like many others, is in shambles. On the back of overzealous COVID-19 lockdowns, border restrictions, and misdirected welfare programs, the nation faces a fiscal crisis. In fact, monetary expansion to fund the deficit binge has pushed inflation beyond the Bank of Canada’s stipulated range of 1 to 3 percent.

  The road to recovery will require difficult decisions and austerity. Meanwhile, the IEA says, “Total CO2 emissions … need to fall by around 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030.” The WEF adds, “Huge declines in the use of coal, oil, and gas will be essential.” The WEF is a fitting ally for the plan, since net-zero dovetails with the Great Reset. One of the IEA’s net-zero recommendations for 2021 is “No new oil and gas fields approved for development; no new coal mines or mine extensions.”

  Why the Stampede Continues

  If one reads the Canadian government’s promotional materials related to net-zero, you can be forgiven for believing the idea is a win-win and no-brainer. Apparently, 120 countries have committed to the plan—not that any are likely to achieve it—and “The transition to a cleaner, prosperous economy needs to be both an immediate priority and a sustained effort over the years and decades ahead.”

  The problem with this lofty language is that it refuses to recognize the tradeoffs at play. That’s why Robert Murphy, a Fraser Institute senior fellow, describes the net-zero plan as “largely symbolic” and “more fairy tale than science.” In an op-ed for the Calgary Sun, Murphy notes “312,000 to 450,000 oil and gas workers are at risk of displacement.” That’s between half and three-quarters of those working in the field, and the pain would be felt most severely in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

  Not only do proponents have a blindspot for the costs, which include burdens on taxpayers and consumers, they also struggle to define and confirm the benefits. The level to which such a fundamental overhaul of the Canadian economy would lessen global warming is minimal. Even if Canada generates relatively high emissions per capita—largely on account of its energy needs, geography, and climate—that still is only 1.6 percent of the world’s total (pdf).

  Instead of touting the benefits of reduced emissions, which in Canada’s case would be trivial, proponents resort to fearmongering, and it works. This is the chief theme of “Apocalypse Never” by Michael Shellenberger, a longtime environmentalist. Subtitled “Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All,” the book picks apart with ease many doomsayer narratives. That includes U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s notorious claim “the world is going to end in 12 years” in the absence of policies to resolve global warming. Shellenberger explains that knee-jerk reactions and ill-fated policies pose much more risk to those in poverty than global warming does.

  Not only are proponents hyping fears, they’re putting Canada on a path to being a sucker: a country that pays a tremendous price for reduced emissions while other countries posture. Deepak Gupta of India’s National Solar Energy Federation writes that the story of international global-warming initiatives has “been one of almost complete and continuous failure,” since developed countries have not honored their commitments. “Their negotiating tactic has been simple. Promise reduction of their own emissions which will not be implemented as they are non-enforceable.”

  In some ways, Canadians would be better off if Gupta were right in their case. Unfortunately, the bills are already arriving in the form of carbon taxes and subsidies for favored firms, right when Canadians can ill-afford to pay for them. These are just the tip of the iceberg of what’s to come if officials are dead set on the net-zero target.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 17:30

• Powell Just Made A Huge Error: What The Market's Shocking Response Means For The Fed's Endgame
  Powell Just Made A Huge Error: What The Market’s Shocking Response Means For The Fed’s Endgame

  Back in December 2015, just days before the Fed hiked rates for the first time since the global financial crisis, in its first tightening campaign since June 2004, we said that Yellen was about to engage in a great policy error, one which like the Ghost of 1937, would end in disaster…

  

  … and sure enough it did, when after 9 rate hikes, Powell realized that a rate of 2.50% is unsustainable for the US economy which first cracked during the summer of 2019 repo crisis when the Fed cut rates three times, only to cut rates to zero from 1.75% in a matter of days after covid conveniently emerged on the global scene and led to an overnight shutdown of the US economy and “forced” the Fed to nationalize the bond market as well as inject trillions of liquidity into the market.

  But what is it that prompted us to predict – correctly – that any rate hike campaign is doomed to fail (similar to the Fed’s ill-conceived plan to hike rates in 1937, which brought the already reeling country to its knees and only World War 2 saved the day, giving FDR a green light to unleash a fiscal stimulus tsunami the likes of which we hadn’t seen until the covid response)?

  Simple: as we explained back in Dec 2015, the equilibrium growth rate in the US, or r* (or r-star), was far far lower than where most economists thought it was. In fact, as the sensitivity table below which we first constructed in 2015 showed, the equilibrium US growth rate was right around 0%.

  

  As we explained then making the case for a far lower r-star, “if nominal growth is 3 percent and the debt GDP ratio is 300 percent, the implied equilibrium nominal rates is around 1 percent. This is because at 1% rates, 100% of GDP growth is necessary to service interest costs.”

  In this case, real growth would slow in response to rate hikes because productivity would stay weak at full employment and companies would be profit/price constrained around paying higher wages. Moreover, nominal growth would then slow even more than real growth does because inflation would fall to 1 percent or below.

  As we concluded then, “this is the important policy error scenario because even a very shallow path of rate hikes might drive the real Funds rate well above the short-term equilibrium real rate, further depressing demand. It is then plausible that the economy would be driven into recession, and the Fed would quickly be forced to abort the hiking cycle. As an aside, such a policy error could reinforce itself by causing structural damage that puts additional downward pressure on the equilibrium real rate. In this case the yield curve would flatten meaningfully, at least until the Fed actually reversed course by cutting rates.”

  As the chart at the top shows, this is precisely what happened, only instead of World War II – which is what short-circuited the Ghost of 1937 rate hike policy error, it was the covid crisis that gave the Fed and the US government a green light to unleash an unlimited monetary and fiscal stimulus, delaying the inevitable recession and kicking the can a few years.

  * * *

  Why is all of this relevant? Because according to some of the smartest people on Wall Street, the market’s reaction to last week’s unexpected Fed announcement suggests that r* now is even lower – which makes intuitive sense in light of the surge in debt and decline in growth excluding government stimulus – and that the next tightening cycle, which may start as soon as next year according to Bullard – will be the shallowest one yet as the US economy can hardly afford tighter financial conditions.

  In a note written late last week, and certainly after the market’s remarkable reversal following the hawkish Fed, DB’s chief FX strategist George Saravelos wrote that the day after the Fed meeting “was extraordinary by any measure: the biggest daily rally in the dollar index since the March global shutdown, a big drop in long-end US yields to the lowest since February, the biggest drop in some commodity prices since March of last year but a new record high in the NASDAQ all happening at the same time.”

  How to square it all up?

  According to Saravelos, the Fed made a big policy error as evidenced by the flattening in the yield curve…

  

  … which according to the DB FX strategist “boils down to a very pessimistic market view on r*” or in other words, the same argument we made 6 years ago when we predicted that the Fed’s hiking cycle would end in disaster.

  First, the easy part. The big dollar rally is entirely with the conventional wisdom that what matters for the greenback is front-end real rates. Fed tightening expectations have repriced sharply higher over 2023 and support more near-term dollar strength (chart 1). There should be no surprise that the dollar has rallied strongly even if 10-year yields have not made new highs.

  

  Second, the commodity part. As the DB strategist notes, the role the Fed has played in inflating commodity prices should not be underestimated and is perhaps seen best in the very high correlation between the dollar and base metal prices at the moment:

  Our fixed income colleagues have shown there is an extremely powerful link between the Fed balance sheet, commodity prices and inflation expectations: the taper of 2013 marked the peak in inflation expectations back then too.

  

  On a similar note, economists have shown that even survey-based measures of inflation expectations such as Michigan exhibit a high correlation to commodity prices. All of this reinforces the point that the Fed can be far more powerful in influencing inflation expectations via
  the dollar and commodities than is commonly assumed.

  Finally, and most importantly, we get to the bond and r* part.

  As the chart below shows, the market has undergone a remarkable twist flattening over the last 48 hours which according to Saravelos is extremely unusual given that the Fed has not even started hiking rates yet. And in a repeat of the aborted hiking cycle of 2015-2019, while market pricing for hikes in 2023 and 2024 has gone up, yields beyond that have gone down as the market is saying that the best the Fed can do is less than 2-years of rate hikes.

  

  This has also coincided with a notable drop in inflation expectations – indeed Fed has shown a hawkish pivot even before market breakevens have reached their pre-2014 normal range.

  

  What all of the above is telling us, according to Saravelos, is that unlike 2015 when we were the only ones warning about how low real r* is, the market now is taking an extremely pessimistic view on real neutral rates, or r*.

  Said otherwise, if the Fed decides to go early – as first Powell hinted and then Bullard doubled down on Friday sending stocks plunging – the market is saying that  it won’t be able to go very far before inflation and growth hit a speed limit, pushing yield expectations after the initial hike lower.

  This very pessimistic view on r*, first laid out here in 2015, is also in line with market behavior beyond the bond market. First, as DB’s Saravelos notes, it is aligned with the very high dollar responsiveness we have seen to even small shifts in Fed stance: huge pent-up demand for yield from investors across the planet forces a stronger dollar and a bigger disinflationary impact quicker than assumed.

  In other words, a low global r* (remember the rest of the world still has massive current account surpluses, or excess savings) pushes US r* even lower.

  Second, a low r* is consistent with continued equity resilience, especially in growth stocks heavily reliant on a low medium-term discount rate. That the equity moves in the past two days were led by huge relative rotation from the Russell to the NASDAQ should not be a surprise. This, as Deutsche Bank ominously warns, is 2010-19 secular stagnation pricing, version 2.

  

  Bottom line: while a day’s price action (or even two) does not a trend make, the market is sending some peculiar signals that need to be monitored. Meanwhile, Saravelis has been emphasizing in recent weeks that the transition away from the v-shaped part of the recovery to the new post-COVID steady state will start raising all sorts of uncomfortable questions, including the structural damage COVID has left on private-sector saving rates as well as the new level of equilibrium real rates. One can only imagine the sorry state of the economy when the fiscal stimulus is gone and turns from a tailwind to a headwind. Historical evidence has shown a huge negative impact of pandemics on r* for example. For a big dollar up cycle, the Fed needs to be able to get very far. The market is not so sure, although for now the paradoxical divergence between the surging dollar and tumbling yields has yet to be addressed by the market.

  A bigger question is will the US even be able to sustain positive GDP growth absent trillions in new stimulus each and every year? And even more ominous: what happens to inflation if the Fed is forced to cut rates well before the inflationary burst is extinguished?  These are among uncomfortable questions markets will have to answer in the coming months.

  Perhaps the biggest question facing the Fed now is whether it is about to do another huge “ghost of 1937” error. As a reminder, the Fed believed the US economy had turned the corner in 1937 and started to raise rates – and was wrong, bringing the economy to its knees again. Only the massive fiscal reflation sparked via World War 2 saved the day.

  The problem is that this time we already had the covid “war” which pushed both the US debt and deficit to wartime levels, so what else left absent all out war with China? How else can the US government justify tens of trillions more in stimulus at a time when the market is already discounting the US economy hitting a brick wall in 2024 when the next rate hike cycle comes to an end. And how will Powell’s replacement (the Fed chair will certainly take the first opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge) combat inflation when some time in 2024 the economy enters recession even as prices continue to rise?

  Because while Saravelos is right that the market freaked out as a result of a “very pessimistic” take on r*, a far more appropriate question is whether we are on the precipice of non-transitory runaway inflation as the Fed’s hands will soon be tied and its attempt to stem soaring prices will push the US into economic depression?

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 17:15

• Cars On US Highways Hit Record Age, May Unleash Repair Boom
  Cars On US Highways Hit Record Age, May Unleash Repair Boom

  More and more Americans are driving older cars. A new report found the average age of a vehicle on US highways hit a record high of 12.1 years in January. What this may suggest is a repair and maintenance boom is ahead. 

  Bloomberg, citing new data from analytics firm IHS Markit, said the age of cars and light trucks increased by .20 years from 11.9 years in January 2020 to January 2021. 

  

  “There doesn’t seem to be a loser here. New vehicles win. The aftermarket wins,” said Todd Campau, IHS Markit’s associate director of aftermarket solutions. “The older the vehicles are, the more opportunity there is that they are reaching the end of life, which feeds new vehicle buying.”

  A global semiconductor shortage could be the reason why people are keeping their cars and trucks longer as the availability of new supply dries up, forcing used car prices to jump in May. Used car prices are now up 16.6% year-to-date (ytd) and according to the Mannheim Used Car Index, which is up 26% YTD and 48% Y/Y, it’s set to keep rising.

  

  Whatever the reason, maybe because the typical term length for auto loans is 63 months, with some loans even out 72 to 84 months, people are holding on to their vehicles for a record length. 

  Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, vehicle owners took out longer loans and leases to offset rising new-car costs, prompting them to hold on to the vehicles longer, Campau said. Record sales before the pandemic also led to a wave of cars that have fallen out of warranty. – Bloomberg 

  Campau said these vehicles are in the “sweet spot” for repairs and overhauls because of wear and tear. 

  “There’s money to be made across the board, but I would probably say the aftermarket stands to gain the most from the used vehicle fleet,” he said.

  And unfortunately, while nominal wage growth – a critical component to keeping inflation sticky – continues to rise, when indexed for inflation, real average hourly earnings are the lowest they have been this century!

  

  So as the cost of everything goes up, even vehicle repairs, this is more bad news for the average American driving an older car that will eventually need repairs – unless they buy the part themselves and learn how to install it via a YouTube video. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 17:00

• Manufacturing (New Normal) "Reality"
  Manufacturing (New Normal) “Reality”

  Authored by CJ Hopkins via ConsentFactory.org,

  The ultimate goal of every totalitarian system is to establish complete control over society and every individual within it in order to achieve ideological uniformity and eliminate any and all deviation from it. This goal can never be achieved, of course, but it is the raison d’être of all totalitarian systems, regardless of what forms they take and ideologies they espouse. You can dress totalitarianism up in Hugo Boss-designed Nazi uniforms, Mao suits, or medical-looking face masks, its core desire remains the same: to remake the world in its paranoid image … to replace reality with its own “reality.”

  

  We are right in the middle of this process currently, which is why everything feels so batshit crazy. The global capitalist ruling classes are implementing a new official ideology, in other words, a new “reality.” That’s what an official ideology is. It’s more than just a set of beliefs. Anyone can have any beliefs they want. Your personal beliefs do not constitute “reality.” In order to make your beliefs “reality,” you need to have the power to impose them on society. You need the power of the police, the military, the media, scientific “experts,” academia, the culture industry, the entire ideology-manufacturing machine.

  There is nothing subtle about this process. Decommissioning one “reality” and replacing it with another is a brutal business. Societies grow accustomed to their “realities.” We do not surrender them willingly or easily. Normally, what’s required to get us to do so is a crisis, a war, a state of emergency, or … you know, a deadly global pandemic.

  During the changeover from the old “reality” to the new “reality,” the society is torn apart. The old “reality” is being disassembled and the new one has not yet taken its place. It feels like madness, and, in a way, it is. For a time, the society is split in two, as the two “realities” battle it out for dominance. “Reality” being what it is (i.e., monolithic), this is a fight to the death. In the end, only one “reality” can prevail.

  This is the crucial period for the totalitarian movement. It needs to negate the old “reality” in order to implement the new one, and it cannot do that with reason and facts, so it has to do it with fear and brute force. It needs to terrorize the majority of society into a state of mindless mass hysteria that can be turned against those resisting the new “reality.” It is not a matter of persuading or convincing people to accept the new “reality.” It’s more like how you drive a herd of cattle. You scare them enough to get them moving, then you steer them wherever you want them to go. The cattle do not know or understand where they are going. They are simply reacting to a physical stimulus. Facts and reason have nothing to do with it.

  And this is what has been so incredibly frustrating for those of us opposing the roll-out of the “New Normal,” whether debunking the official Covid-19 narrative, or “Russiagate,” or the “Storming of the US Capitol,” or any other element of the new official ideology. (And, yes, it is all one ideology, not “communism,” or “fascism,” or any other nostalgia, but the ideology of the system that actually rules us, supranational global capitalism. We’re living in the first truly global-hegemonic ideological system in human history. We have been for the last 30 years. If you are touchy about the term “global capitalism,” go ahead and call it “globalism,” or “crony capitalism,” or “corporatism,” or whatever other name you need to. Whatever you call it, it became the unrivaled globally-hegemonic ideological system when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s. Yes, there are pockets of internal resistance, but it has no external adversaries, so its progression toward a more openly totalitarian structure is logical and entirely predictable.)

  Anyway, what has been so incredibly frustrating is that many of us have been operating under the illusion that we are engaged in a rational argument over facts (e.g., the facts of Russiagate, Literal-Hitlergate, 9/11, Saddam’s WMDs, Douma, the January 6 “insurrection,” the official Covid narrative, etc.)

  This is not at all what is happening. Facts mean absolutely nothing to the adherents of totalitarian systems.

  You can show the New Normals the facts all you like. You can show them the fake photos of people dead in the streets in China in March of 2020. You can show them the fake projected death rates. You can explain how the fake PCR tests work, how healthy people were deemed medical “cases.” You can show them all the studies on the ineffectiveness of masks. You can explain the fake “hospitalization” and “death” figures, send them articles about the unused “emergency hospitals,” the unremarkable age-and-population-adjusted death rates, cite the survival rates for people under 70, the dangers and pointlessness of “vaccinating” children. None of this will make the slightest difference.

  Or, if you’ve bought the Covid-19 narrative, but haven’t completely abandoned your critical faculties, you can do what Glenn Greenwald has been doing recently. You can demonstrate how the corporate media have intentionally lied, again and again, to whip up mass hysteria over “domestic terrorism.”

  You can show people videos of the “violent domestic terrorists” calmly walking into the Capitol Building in single file, like a high-school tour group, having been let in by members of Capitol Security. You can debunk the infamous “fire-extinguisher murder” of Brian Sicknik that never really happened. You can point out that the belief that a few hundred unarmed people running around in the Capitol qualifies as an “insurrection,” or an “attempted coup,” or “domestic terrorism,” is delusional to the point of being literally insane. This will also not make the slightest difference.

  I could go on, and I’m sure I will as the “New Normal” ideology becomes our new “reality” over the course of the next several years. My point, at the moment, is … this isn’t an argument. The global-capitalist ruling classes, government leaders, the corporate media, and the New Normal masses they have instrumentalized are not debating with us. They know the facts. They know the facts contradict their narratives. They do not care. They do not have to. Because this isn’t about facts. It’s about power.

  I’m not saying that facts don’t matter. Of course they matter. They matter to us. I’m saying, let’s recognize what this is. It isn’t a debate or a search for the truth. The New Normals are disassembling one “reality” and replacing it with a new “reality.” (Yes, I know that reality exists in some fundamental ontological sense, but that isn’t the “reality” I’m talking about here, so please do not send me angry emails railing against Foucault and postmodernism.)

  The pressure to conform to the new “reality” is already intense and it’s going to get worse as vaccination passes, public mask-wearing, periodic lockdowns, etc., become normalized. Those who don’t conform will be systematically demonized, socially and/or professionally ostracized, segregated, and otherwise punished. Our opinions will be censored. We will be “canceled,” deplatformed, demonitized, and otherwise silenced. Our views will be labeled “potentially harmful.”

  We will be accused of spreading “misinformation,” of being “far-right extremists,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “anti-global-capitalist violent domestic terrorists,” or just garden variety “sexual harassers,” or whatever they believe will damage us the most.

  This will happen in both the public and personal spheres. Not just governments, the media, and corporations, but your colleagues, friends, and family will do this. Strangers in shops and restaurants will do this. Most of them will not do it consciously. They will do it because your non-conformity represents an existential threat to them … a negation of their new “reality” and a reminder of the reality they surrendered in order to remain a “normal” person and avoid the punishments described above.

  This is nothing new, of course. It is how “reality” is manufactured, not only in totalitarian systems, but in every organized social system. Those in power instrumentalize the masses to enforce conformity with their official ideology. Totalitarianism is just its most extreme and most dangerously paranoid and fanatical form.

  So, sure, keep posting and sharing the facts, assuming you can get them past the censors, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we’re up against.

  We’re not going to wake the New Normals up with facts. If we could, we would have done so already. This is not a civilized debate about facts. This is a fight. Act accordingly.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/20/2021 – 16:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Bovard Blasts Biden's Buffoonish War On Extremism
  Bovard Blasts Biden’s Buffoonish War On Extremism

  Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com,

  The Biden administration revealed on Tuesday that guys who can’t get laid may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” That revelation is part of a new crackdown that identifies legions of potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate. But there is no reason to expect Biden administration anti-terrorism and anti-extremism efforts to be less of a farce and menace than similar post-9/11 campaigns.

  

  Since the French Revolution, politicians have defined terrorism to stigmatize their opponents, a precedent followed by the Biden administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. The report labels the January 6 clash at the Capitol as a “domestic terrorism” incident but fails to mention it spurred a mushroom cloud of increasingly far-fetched official accusations. Capitol Police acting Chief Yogananda Pittman told Congress that January 6 was “a terrorist attack by tens of thousands of insurrectionists.” Less than a thousand protestors entered the Capitol that day but apparently any Trump supporter who hustled down the Mall towards the Capitol became the legal equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, this “seen walking in the same zip code” standard for guilt could be the prototype for Biden era domestic terrorist prosecutions.

  The Biden report did not bestow the same “terrorist” label on the mobs who burned U.S. post offices in Minneapolis or assailed a federal courthouse in Portland last year. In its litany of terrorist incidents, the report cites “the vehicular killing of a peaceful protestor in Charlottesville” at the 2017 Unite the Right ruckus but omits the 49 people killed in 2016 by a Muslim enraged by U.S. foreign policy at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. Maybe that case was excluded because the murderer was the protected son of a long-term FBI informant and FBI falsehoods derailed the subsequent trial of his widow. Nor did the report mention the worst terrorist incident since 9/11—the Las Vegas bloodbath where a single shooter killed 58 people and injured 900 others. The FBI claimed it could never find a motive for that slaughter and its “final report” on the incident was only three pages long. Never mind.

  The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that… infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to attempt to banish certain ideas from acceptable discourse. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election… will almost certainly spur some [Domestic Violent Extremists] to try to engage in violence this year.” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech last fall to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election?

  The Biden administration is revving up for a war against an enemy which the feds have chosen to never explicitly define. According to a March report by Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” But that was the same belief that many Biden voters had regarding the Trump administration. Does the definition of extremism depend solely on which party captured the White House?

  The report notes that the “Department of Defense is reviewing and updating its definition of prohibited extremist activities among uniformed military personnel.” Bishop Garrison, the chief of the Pentagon’s new Countering Extremism Working Group, is Exhibit A for the follies of extremist crackdowns on extremism. In a series of 2019 tweets, Garrison, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, denounced all Trump supporters as “racists.” Garrison’s working group will “specifically define what constitutes extremist behavior” for American soldiers. If Garrison purges Trump supporters from the military, the Pentagon would be unable to conquer the island of Grenada. Biden policymakers also intend to create an “anti-radicalization” program for individuals departing the military service. This initiative will likely produce plenty of leaks and embarrassing disclosures in the coming months and years.

  The Biden report is spooked by the existence of militia groups and flirts with the fantasy of outlawing them across the land. The report promises to explore “how to make better use of laws that already exist in all fifty states prohibiting certain private ‘militia’ activity, including…state statutes prohibiting groups of people from organizing as private military units without the authorization of the state government, and state statutes that criminalize certain paramilitary activity.” Most of the private militia groups are guilty of nothing more than bluster and braggadocio. Besides, many of them are already overstocked with government informants who are counting on Uncle Sam for regular paychecks.

  As part of its anti-extremism arsenal, DHS is financing programs for “enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills” and helping internet users avoid “vulnerability to…harmful content deliberately disseminated by malicious actors online.” Do the feds have inside information about another Hunter Biden laptop turning up, or what? The Biden administration intends to bolster Americans’ defenses against extremism by developing “interactive online resources such as skills-enhancing online games.” If the games are as stupefying as this report, nobody will play them.

  The Biden report stresses that federal law enforcement agencies “play a critical role in responding to reports of criminal and otherwise concerning activity.” “Otherwise concerning activity”? This is the same standard that turned prior anti-terrorist efforts into laughingstocks.

  Fusion Centers are not mentioned in the Biden report but they are a federal-state-local law enforcement partnership launched after 9/11 to vacuum up reports of suspicious activity. Seventy Fusion Centers rely on the same standard—“If you see something, say something”—that a senior administration official invoked in a background call on Monday for the new Biden initiative. The Los Angeles Police Department encouraged citizens to snitch on “individuals who stay at bus or train stops for extended periods while buses and trains come and go,” “individuals who carry on long conversations on pay or cellular telephones,” and “joggers who stand and stretch for an inordinate amount of time.” The Kentucky Office of Homeland Security recommended the reporting of “people avoiding eye contact,” “people in places they don’t belong,” or homes or apartments that have numerous visitors “arriving and leaving at unusual hours,” PBS’s Frontline reported. Colorado’s Fusion Center “produced a fear-mongering public service announcement asking the public to report innocuous behaviors such as photography, note-taking, drawing and collecting money for charity as ‘warning signs’ of terrorism,” the ACLU complained.

  Various other Fusion Centers have attached warning labels to gun-rights activists, anti-immigration zealots, and individuals and groups “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” A 2012 Homeland Security report stated that being “reverent of individual liberty” is one of the traits of potential right-wing terrorists. The Constitution Project concluded in a 2012 report that DHS Fusion Centers “pose serious risks to civil liberties, including rights of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, racial and religious equality, privacy, and the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion.” Fusion Centers continue to be bankrolled by DHS despite their dismal record.

  The Biden report promises that the FBI and DHS will soon be releasing “a new edition of the Federal Government’s Mobilization Indicators booklet that will include for the first time potential indicators of domestic terrorism–related mobilization.” Will this latest publication be as boneheaded as the similar 2014 report by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts”?

  As the Intercept summarized, that report “suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as ‘Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,’ … and ‘Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)’ … to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.” The report recommended judging families by their level of “Parent-Child Bonding” and rating localities on the basis in part of the “presence of ideologues or recruiters.” Former FBI agent Mike German commented, “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical, and social-service employees to rate the communities, individuals, and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face.”

  The Biden administration presumes that bloating the definition of extremists is the surest way to achieve domestic tranquility. In this area, as in so many others, Biden’s team learned nothing from the follies of the Obama administration. No one in D.C. apparently recalls that President Obama perennially denounced extremism and summoned the United Nations in 2014 to join his “campaign against extremism.” Under Obama, the National Security Agency presumed that “someone searching the Web for suspicious stuff” was a suspected extremist who forfeited all constitutional rights to privacy. Obama’s Transportation Security Administration relied on ludicrous terrorist profiles that targeted American travelers who were yawning, hand wringing, gazing down, swallowing suspiciously, sweating, or making “excessive complaints about the [TSA] screening process.”

  Will the Biden crackdown on extremists end as ignominiously as Nixon’s crackdown almost 50 years earlier? Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston explained that the FBI’s COINTELPRO program continually stretched its target list “from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.” At some point, surveillance became more intent on spurring fear than on gathering information. FBI agents were encouraged to conduct interviews with anti-war protesters to “enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles and further serve to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox,” as a 1970 FBI memo noted. Is the Biden castigation campaign an attempt to make its opponents fear that the feds are tracking their every email and website click?

  Biden’s new terrorism policy has evoked plenty of cheers from his Fourth Estate lapdogs. But a Washington Post article fretted that the administration’s report did not endorse enacting “new legal authority to successfully hunt down, prosecute, and imprison homegrown extremists.” Does the D.C. media elite want to see every anti-Biden scoffer in the land put behind bars? This is typical of the switcheroo that politicians and the media play with the terms “terrorists” and “extremists.” Regardless of paranoia inside the Beltway, MAGA hats are not as dangerous as pipe bombs.

  The Biden report concludes that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” But permitting politicians to blacklist any ideas they disapprove won’t “restore faith in democracy.” Extremism has always been a flag of political convenience, and the Biden team, the FBI, and their media allies will fan fears to sanctify any and every government crackdown. But what if government is the most dangerous extremist of them all?

  *  *  *

  James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 23:30

• Next Generation Of Motorsports May Involve "Flying Racing Car" 
  Next Generation Of Motorsports May Involve “Flying Racing Car” 

  Imagine if F1 racing ever dabbled in air racing – it would likely involve some sleek, high-performance flying car, zooming over a fixed course in the sky as the crowd, dazzled not by the roar of a petrol high-performance motor but rather the buzzing of propellers. 

  There appears to be new extreme motorsport on the horizon, and it involves the world’s first flying electric cars series. 

  According to Airspeeder, a proposed motorsport series for electric flying vehicles, founded by Matt Pearson and powered by performance eVTOL manufacturer Alauda, their prototype electric racing vehicle called EXA has successfully completed its first flight. 

  

  Airspeeder EXA is the flying car’s name and will be remotely piloted in three global races this year. Races will be brought to the public from professional minds at Brabham, McLaren, Jaguar, F1, Boeing, and Rolls-Royce.

  The racing vehicles aren’t designed to carry a pilot inside, which means pilots from aviation, motorsport, and eSports backgrounds will be able to operate the world’s only racing electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

  

  Augmented reality sky-tracks will be displayed for pilots as their flying race cars will show the audience, via live steams, the potential of these full potential of these powerful flying machines that have a greater thrust-to-weight ratio than a McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter jet. 

  The company says this is a “sport for the digital era. It needs no physical infrastructure for spectators or tracks. We race and with minimal ecological impact.” 

  Give this sport a high ESG rating while you’re at it! 

  What would be cooler if this sport paves the way for crewed electric flying car racing series. 

  It seems like F1, IndyCar Series, and NASCAR might have a new competitor, one that is ESG friendly. 

  Without further ado, flying racing cars are here. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 23:00

• University Of Florida Lab Finds Dangerous Pathogens On Children's Face Masks
  University Of Florida Lab Finds Dangerous Pathogens On Children’s Face Masks

  Authored by Meiling Lee via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A laboratory at the University of Florida that recently analyzed a small sample of face masks, detected the presence of 11 dangerous pathogens that included bacterias that cause diphtheria, pneumonia, and meningitis.

  

  Gainesville parents in Florida concerned about the harm caused to their children wearing face masks all day at school in 90 °F weather sent out six masks—five that were worn by children ages 6 to 11 for five to eight hours at school, and one worn by an adult—to be analyzed for contaminants at the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center.

  Of the six masks, three were surgical, two cotton, and a poly gaiter. Masks that have not been worn and a t-shirt worn at school acted as the control samples.

  Five of the masks were found to be contaminated with parasites, fungi, and bacteria, according to Rational Ground. Only one mask was found to contain a virus that can cause a fatal systemic disease in cattle and deer. Other less harmful pathogens that can cause ulcers, acne, and strep throat were also detected.

  None of the controls were contaminated with pathogens, while “samples from the front top and bottom of the t-shirt found proteins that are commonly found in skin and hair, along with some commonly found in soil.”

  Amanda Donoho, a mother of three elementary school children, teamed up with other parents to send the masks to the lab because her sons broke out in rashes from prolonged mask-wearing.

  “Our kids have been in masks all day, seven hours a day in school,” Donoho told Fox & Friends on June 17. “The only break that they get is to eat or drink.”

  Donoho said that while students do not have to wear a mask outside at school since April 2021, masks were still required when they were within six to eight feet of each other. Masks must also be worn on school buses.

  Further research is needed to better understand what is being put on children’s faces, says Donoho.

  Superintendent Carlee Simon at the Alachua County Public Schools (ACPS) in Gainesville, Fla. did not respond to a request for comment.

  The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that kids should continue to wear masks and social distance until they are able to get vaccinated, despite data showing that children are minimally affected by COVID-19 and are not super-spreaders of the virus.

  Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed an executive order on May 3, suspending all COVID-19 emergency restrictions, including mask-wearing. However, certain school districts like ACPS kept their mask policy in place for the remainder of the school year, while masks were optional within the community.

  ACPS says masks will be optional for the 2021–22 school year but would continue to be required on school buses until mid-September unless the federal transportation regulation changes.

  The CDC says masks are still required on planes, trains, buses, and at airports.

  In an updated June 17 guidance, masks are no longer required in “outdoor areas of a conveyance (like a ferry or the top deck of a bus)” and fully vaccinated individuals may resume everyday activities that were done prior to the pandemic without mask-wearing or physically distancing unless required by federal or state law.

  People are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second shot of a messenger RNA vaccine or after a single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

  The CDC did not give guidance for people who’ve recovered from COVID-19 and have natural immunity.

  The Epoch Times has contacted the CDC for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 22:30

• "Coming To Stores Near You Soon" – PepsiCo Files Trademark For 'Rockstar' Hard Seltzers 
  “Coming To Stores Near You Soon” – PepsiCo Files Trademark For ‘Rockstar’ Hard Seltzers 

  A new patent filed last week appears to show PepsiCo Inc. wants to dive headfirst into the hard seltzers market via its “Rockstar” brand.

  PepsiCo filed a trademark application on Monday (June 14) for the “Rockstar” trademark registration that indicates the beverage company plans to sell it as a beer, alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks, alcoholic malt beverages, and hard seltzer.

  

  The filing was first tweeted by Josh Gerben, founder of Gerben Intellectual Property, said:

  “Pepsico has filed a new trademark application for its ROCKSTAR brand (the energy drink). In the USPTO filing (made on June 14) Pepsico says it now plans to sell ROCKSTAR-branded beer and hard seltzer. Coming to stores near you soon…”

  

  We noted Wednesday that hard seltzers are singlehandedly transforming the alcohol industry. 

  According to IWSR Drinks Market Analysis, alcohol sales soared during the pandemic, and hard seltzers led most of the growth. They found seltzers and canned cocktails jumped 43%, and overall alcohol sales rose about 2% in 2020. 

  NielsenIQ data provided Business Insider with data on the hard seltzer industry, only to reveal that it has become a multi-billion dollar industry over a short period, with $4.5 billion in sales in just 52 weeks ending on May 22. For the month, sales jumped 80% over the same month in 2020. In 2017, hard seltzers had sales of only $39 million. Already, sales this year are around $3 billion, more than doubling 2019’s. 

  If Pepsi wants to stay relevant and one step ahead of Coca-Cola, the latest “Rockstar” hard seltzer trademark filing will do that just for them. Only a matter of time before Coca-Cola files a trademark registration of its own hard seltzer. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 22:00

• Meet The Censored: Bret Weinstein
  Meet The Censored: Bret Weinstein

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

  On May 23, 2017, not so long ago in real time but seemingly an eternity given the extraordinary history we’ve lived through since, a group of 50-odd students at Evergreen State College arrived at the classroom of a biology professor named Bret Weinstein, demanding his resignation. He stepped into the hall to talk, believing he could work things out.

  He was wrong. Weinstein’s offense had been to come to work during an event called the “Days of Absence,” in which white students, staff, and faculty were asked to stay home. This was an inverted version of a longstanding Evergreen event of the same name that, based on a Douglas Turner Ward play, invited students of color to stay home voluntarily, to underscore their value to the community. As he would later explain in the Wall Street Journal, Weinstein thought this was a different and more negative message, and refused to comply. When that group of 50 students he’d never met arrived at his door and accused him of being a racist, he assumed he could find common ground, especially when his own students (including students of color) spoke on his behalf.

  “I was one of Evergreen’s most popular professors,” he later testified to the House of Representatives. “I had Evergreen’s version of tenure. Did they really think they could force my resignation based on a meritless accusation? They did think that, and they were right.”

  Weinstein was a Bernie Sanders supporter who described his politics as unabashedly liberal, even leftist. Like many, he’d grown up steeped in the imagery of sixties protest culture, probably imagined himself on its side, and therefore thought he could find solidarity with protesters. He didn’t realize was that he was the canary in a coal mine for a new movement that understood free speech as a stalking horse for the exercise of institutional power. When Weinstein opened his mouth to defend himself, what the crowd heard was him attempting to exercise authority, and they exercised theirs back.

  They’d won over Evergreen’s new president, George Bridges, who refused to intercede in Weinstein’s behalf and later even asked college police to stand down, when protesters began stopping traffic and searching cars for someone, presumably Weinstein. The police told Weinstein they couldn’t guarantee his safety, and ultimately he was, in fact, forced to resign.

  Frequently portrayed as the involuntary protagonist of the first of a series of campus free speech crises, in fact Weinstein was one of the first to understand that a rollback of “free speech” in cases like his was incidental to the larger aims of the movement.

  “What is occurring on college campuses is about power and control. Speech is impeded as a last resort,” he told the House Oversight Committee.

  He described the new movement as like a cult, in which members sincerely believed they were acting to stop oppression, but leaders understood they were simply “turning the tables” on oppression. They were exercising authority to achieve what may be presented as social justice goals, while the actual end is the authority itself, with the teardown of due process and other protections a critical part of the picture. “This committee,” he said, “should take my tale as cautionary.”

  Fast forward three years. Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have become prominent figures in independent media, co-hosting a popular podcast called DarkHorse. Identified in the New York Times as one of the main dramatis personae of the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web,” a group of heterodox intellectuals not aligned with the traditional right or left, he appeared for a time to find a home on YouTube. Maybe he would never go back to academia, but this seemed a more secure replacement. After all it’s one thing to be dependent on the whims of a college president or even a faculty board, but surely there’s safety in subscriber numbers?

  Not so fast. As detailed in “Why Has ‘Ivermectin’ Become a Dirty Word?”, Weinstein is on the verge of becoming one of the more prominent casualties to a censorship movement that it’s hard not to see as part of a wider Evergreening of America. He and Heying’s two YouTube channels have been hit with multiple warnings for two brands of speech offenses, and are on the verge of having their business shut down entirely as a result (YouTube has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy). One offense involves interviews with the likes of Dr. Pierre Kory about the potential benefits of the repurposed drug ivermectin, and the other involves interviews with guests like Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology used in the Covid-19 vaccines. One video with Malone this week had 587,331 views before it was shut down.

  In the years since Weinstein left Evergreen, the American cultural and political establishment has undergone a change in thinking, tracking with the warning Weinstein delivered to congress. The Trump election inspired a loss of faith in democracy, Charlottesville defamed speech rights, and Russiagate was an ongoing argument against due process, with many of the same people who opposed Dick Cheney’s spy state suddenly seeing themselves as aligned with the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA in the war on Trump.

  Weinstein in his testimony talked about a movement that targeted the liberal concepts that traditionally bound us together, one being the “marketplace of ideas.” By 2021, the “marketplace of ideas” was regularly being portrayed as a trick, a tool for repression designed to conceal the fact that, as the New York Times put it last year, “good ideas do not always triumph in a marketplace of ideas.”

  Thus instead of argument and debate, many now believe we should use force and influence to achieve objectives. This is just what Weinstein described at Evergreen: eschewing argument, accumulating power for its own sake instead. It’s in light of this cultural shift that we’ve seen a movement in favor of censorship, with erstwhile opponents of corporations posturing as libertarians, filling social media with arguments about how private companies should be free to do what they want.

  When Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify teamed up to kick Alex Jones off the Internet in the summer of 2018, most of the left cheered. The obvious fear, however, was that moderators would develop mission creep. The DarkHorse incidents show we’re there. Whether or not one agrees with Weinstein about the efficacy of ivermectin, or the idea that the Covid-19 vaccines carry unreported dangers, anyone who follows his show recognizes that his is nearly the opposite of an Alex Jones act. He and Heying’s shows are neither frivolous nor abusive, and they clearly make an effort to be evidence-based, interviewing credentialed authorities, typically about subjects ignored by the corporate press.

  This is exactly what independent/alternative media is for: tackling third rail subjects that, for one reason or another, can’t find a home in traditional media. Often, it takes scoops initially dismissed as silly conspiracies by what ABC reporter Jon Karl recently described as “serious people,” a classic example being Gary Webb’s famous CIA cocaine trafficking story.

  A Time magazine editor in rejecting that one told reporters on that “if this story were about the Sandinistas and drugs, you’d have no trouble getting it in the magazine,” while Newsweek years later called a U.S. Senator, John Kerry, a “randy conspiracy buff” for saying the Contras in Nicaragua were engaged in drug trafficking. Only years later, in the small San Jose Mercury-News, did the story come out, and even then it took years before the coke-for-guns tale truly broke through in popular media.

  With the Covid-19 story, Weinstein and Heying were among the first to openly consider the so-called “lab leak hypothesis” of how the pandemic began. In fact, in the days before people like Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to change their minds about the theory’s feasibility, and before beloved mainstream figures like Jon Stewart declared that if there was “an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania” you’d know “it’s the fucking chocolate factory,” Weinstein and Heyer were roundly denounced as Covid-19 misinformation peddlers.

  In January, after they went on Real Time With Bill Maher, they were blasted for pushing a “Steve Bannon Wuhan Lab Covid Conspiracy” by a Daily Beast writer who mostly seemed upset that Weinstein and Heying had soiled Maher with the ick of unconventional thinking. However, since conventional wisdom on the lab leak theory changed, criticism on that front has died down, especially now that platforms like Facebook have announced they “will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.” Still, the shift in consensus thinking about lab origin has only seemed to accelerate the vigilance about ivermectin and other issues.

  This is a significant moment in the history of American media. If a show with the audience that Weinstein and Heying have can be put out of business this easily, it means that independent media going forward will either have to operate outside the major Internet platforms, or give up its traditional role as a challenger of mainstream narratives. There are plenty of people out there who take a sarcastic view of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” just as they roll their eyes at lots of YouTubers or Instagram stars or even the “Substackerati,” but even those critics should realize the seriousness of this moment, not just for this show, but for all media.

  I reached out to Weinstein about his fight with YouTube:

  TK: Can you sketch out the structure of your media business?

  Weinstein: Heather and I have been doing livestreams since March, 2020. They began as bi-weekly and were originally focused on COVID. The topic quickly broadened, and streams were reduced to once a week in September, 2020. We have done 83 livestreams as of June 5th. Livestreams consist of 1-2 hours of presentation and discussion between Heather and Bret, followed by 1-2 hours of audience Q and A.

  The remainder of the podcasts are discussions between me, Bret, and one or more guests. Some have been done in studio, others over zoom. The maximum number of guests was The Black Intellectual Round Table with seven guests. All guest discussions have been taped, with two recent exceptions (with Pierre Kory, and Steve Kirsch/Robert Malone), and generally the content is not edited with respect to substance. The main channel has 329,000 subscribers. Revenue on the main channel is generated by YouTube ads at the beginning of the podcast, by Superchat questions, and recently we have done spoken ads for carefully chosen sponsors. Podcasts also drive subscribership on each of our Patreon pages, and channel/podcast merchandise is also available from Teespring linked through YouTube. 

  The clips channel was created in July 2020, and consists of clips made by a video editor/producer who watches our podcasts and selects highlights. Subscribership on the clips channel is rapidly growing and stands at 182,000. All revenue on the clips channel is from YouTube ads.

  The main livestreams (but not the Q&As), and the podcasts that I have with other guests, are also uploaded to audio-only podcast platforms. Combining YouTube and podcast downloads, episodes tend to get above 200,000 views/listens each. The audio-only podcast has reliably been in the top 10 in Apple’s “Science podcasts” category, and goes in and out of top 100 in “overall” podcasts. Currently it is #77.

  TK: Tech company executives have consistently said they intervene on this subject only for safety reasons, to prevent misleading information that might cause someone to avoid a lifesaving treatment. What is your answer to that? Are you an anti-vaxxer? Could a reasonable person infer from your broadcasts that you’re recommending that adults not get vaccinated?

  Weinstein: We are biologists engaging material that is inherently evolutionary. Our upcoming book is on the problem caused by the interface of people with novel technology for which we are not evolutionarily prepared. No one is trained in even a majority of the disciplines relevant to the COVID Pandemic. Virologists aren’t clinicians, aren’t epidemiologists, aren’t evolutionary biologists, aren’t pharmacologists, aren’t data scientists. We state repeatedly that we are not medical doctors and are not making recommendations, but we are sharing our view of scientific material that we are qualified to analyze.

  It is true that some may become hesitant about the Covid vaccines from our discussions. That may cost lives, as we have taken pains to point out repeatedly. We also surely save lives. For example, it is especially likely that DarkHorse viewers who have had COVID would skip being vaccinated, greatly reducing their risk of adverse reactions without increasing their risk of future COVID.

  The question is one of net effect. We have been way ahead of official guidance throughout the pandemic, and we have been very sharp in our criticism of those who have treated SARS-CoV2 casually. We have clearly sobered many up about the issue. Our refrain has been that although the case fatality rate from COVID is moderate, the damage to the body from a case of COVID—even if mild—is often substantial and likely implies reduced longevity. And we have given prescient advice on prevention. We were extremely early in recognizing that conducting business outside, opening windows (especially in cars), keeping conversation with strangers brief, wearing masks, removing masks outside, spending time in the sun, supplementing with vitamin-D, all have protective effects.

  The best defense of what we have done on DarkHorse is simply to compare our prevention model with the official guidance. It is the low quality and slow improvement in the official model that constitutes the greatest danger. It takes far too long for official guidance to catch up to the evidence.

  As to the questions of whether we are vaccinated and/or would get vaccinated again: we (and our children) are more fully vaccinated than most people, in part due to the exposures that our (former) jobs as tropical biologists gave us. We are, for instance, vaccinated against yellow fever, typhoid, and rabies. We are not vaccinated against Covid, and do not intend to get vaccinated against Covid (unless, perhaps, a traditional vaccine were to be produced).

  TK: Jon Stewart made the lab-leak hypothesis mainstream last week. You were one of the first media figures to try to bring attention in that direction. What was the response when you raised your own concerns, and what’s your reaction now, given the way that discussion has suddenly become permissible?

  Weinstein: The lessons of the lab leak are many. Of course, those of us who could see that the official narrative was wildly inconsistent with the evidence were aggressively stigmatized. Many were driven to self silence. And the official narrative could easily have held, causing dissenters to be recorded in history as cranks. This is standard for such a situation. Unfortunately, there is no appetite for extrapolating from the lab leak to other COVID questions. Today Tony Fauci announced a multi-billion dollar initiative to search for new drugs to treat COVID, and Carl Zimmer dutifully reported the story with excitement in the NYT, even as the revelations about Fauci’s apparent corruption and responsibility continue to surface. There was no mention of the danger implied in new drugs and EUAs. The idea of repurposed drugs doing the job safely and cheaply is elided with the baseless assertion that a search for useful existing drugs was essentially fruitless. There is simply no update to the public’s trust in authority based on the lessons of the lab leak, no recognition that officials are often mistaken, or lying or both.

  And that’s the core of the problem with YouTube’s policy. Official consensus has been frequently laughable in the context of Covid, often with deadly consequences. If ever there was a moment for scientific generalists to help their audience understand the evidence, this is it.

  Consider this bizarre fact. In Sept. 2020, Politifact “fact checked” the lab leak hypothesis and declared it a “pants on fire lie.” Politifact was forced to walk that conclusion back in May 2021. My flow chart had a lab leak at almost 90% as of April 2020. In June of 2021 Politifact “fact checked” the assertion (made on the DarkHorse Podcast by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology) that “spike protein is cytotoxic.” They declared it false. How did they end up the arbiter of factual authority in this case? Shouldn’t the presumption be with Dr. Malone, and with DarkHorse?

  TK: Don’t tech companies and health officials have a responsibility to try to prevent dangerous speech during an emergency like a pandemic? Do you feel that any discussion on a topic like this should be allowed, or do you believe there should be a minimal factual standard? What’s the proper way to regulate this dilemma in your opinion?

  Weinstein: I don’t think it works this way. Once you create the right to shut down speech for the good of the public, that tool becomes a target of capture and true speech is silenced. Furthermore, humans are stuck with the fact that heterodoxy exists at the fringe with the cranks. No one has a way to sort one from the other, except in retrospect. So if you regulate the cranks out of existence, you also shut down meaningful progress. The price of that is incalculable. Heather had a great piece on this published recently (What If We’re Wrong? In the on-line magazine Areo).

  TK: Even if there are serious risks to your business, do you intend to stop talking about the subject? 

  Of course not. Lives are on the line. Too many have been lost already. This is an absolute moral obligation. That doesn’t mean we won’t pick battles strategically, but even loss of our channels is acceptable if the madness surrounding COVID treatment and prevention can be stopped. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 21:30

• World's Third Largest Diamond Unearthed In Botswana 
  World’s Third Largest Diamond Unearthed In Botswana 

  An enormous diamond has been unearthed in Botswana, according to a series of tweets by the Botswana government. 

  On Wednesday, the government of Botswana tweeted that 1,098-carat stone, believed to be the third-largest diamond ever found, was presented to President Mokgweetsi Masisi by Debswana Diamond Company’s acting managing director Lynette Armstrong. 

  

  Debswana is a mining company located in Botswana and is the world’s top producer of diamonds by value. The company is a joint venture between the government of Botswana and the South African diamond company De Beers; each party owns an equal share of the company. 

  “The diamond which is the third-largest in the world after the first and second that were discovered in South Africa and Lucara Botswana respectively, was discovered on June 1st from Jwaneng mine’s South Kimberlite pipe, making it the largest diamond in the company’s history since diamonds were discovered in Botswana in 1967,” the government said. 

  Masisi said the diamond would be sold, and “proceeds will be used to advance national development in the country.”

  He added, “Debswana should use this latest discovery as an inflection point, for the mine to use its technology to realize more of these large discoveries.” 

  The announcement of the diamond’s discovery comes as IDEX Diamond Index, real-time global diamond asking prices, has risen to a five-year high. 

  

  For years, we’ve noted diamonds have become unpopular as millennials were saturated with debt, unable to realize the American dream of marriage and a house. But thanks to global central banks and governments worldwide pumping trillions of dollars into the global economy, diamond demand has surged, and prices are way up. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 21:00

• Reining In the Fed
  Reining In the Fed

  Authored by Alexander William Salter via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  A specter is haunting the Federal Reserve: the specter of political activism. 

  

  It’s no secret that something strange is happening at the Fed.

  Visitors to the New York Fed’s homepage are greeted, not with a description of the Fed’s important monetary and regulatory mandates, but an affirmation of the Fed’s commitment to economic justice.

  “We are firm in the belief that economic equality is a critical component for social justice,” the banner reads. 

  Social equity is important.

  It’s certainly a valid area for policy action. But why it’s any concern of the Fed’s is a mystery.

  In addition, the Fed recently waded into environmental policy. It’s started putting soft pressure on the banks it oversees to disclose what they’re doing about climate risk and is gearing up for a significant climate-related regulatory extension. There’s no serious economic model or regulatory paradigm linking climate change to financial crises, of course. And the Fed’s poor track record at forecasting big economic shocks means we have scant reason to give it the benefit of the doubt.

  This is bureaucratic overreach, plain and simple. The Fed has no mandate to pursue these goals. 

  In late May, I wrote a public letter of concern about how the Fed’s vital monetary and regulatory missions are in danger of morphing into something sinister. The letter was warmly received by experts in monetary and financial policy. It has more than three dozen co-signatories, including distinguished academics, former high Fed and Treasury officials, members of the Shadow Open Market Committee, and prominent CEOs.

  The letter expresses my worry that “the Fed’s behavior renders it increasingly sensitive to political interference.” Recent public statements by Fed Governor Lael Brainard and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari give us strong reasons to suspect the Fed is pursuing partisan agendas. This lessens the Fed’s credibility, weakens its independence, and makes it less capable of serving the public.

  It’s time to put the Fed back on track. I believe Congress can and should act to rein in the Fed. 

  We know all too well that when it comes to bureaucratic mission creep, it’s incredibly difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. That’s why we must work to right the Fed’s course starting now. Its roles in fighting recessions and preventing financial panics are too important to be hijacked by partisanship.

  The Fed can’t function as an effective macroeconomic steward unless it stays in its lane. Americans have a right to demand the central bank focus on its core duties.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 20:30

• Colorado Home Dubbed "Slice Of Hell" Is Selling For $590k
  Colorado Home Dubbed “Slice Of Hell” Is Selling For $590k

  A Colorado listing on Redfin has gone viral with more than half a million views since it was recently listed. The description in the listing calls the house a “slice of hell” after a departing tenant went ape shit during an eviction.

  “Now it’s every landlord’s nightmare and needs someone with firm resolve to appreciate its potential. If you dream of owning your own little slice of hell and turning it into a piece of heaven, then look no further!” the listing said. 

  

  Photos uploaded to Redfin for the property located at 4525 Churchill Ct, Colorado Springs, show widespread vandalism with spray-painted floors, walls, doors, and cabinets, along with hammer holes in the drywall. 

  

  

  “There is not one surface of the home that has not been enhanced with black spray paint or a swinging hammer – damage done by an angry departing tenant who didn’t want to pay rent. But don’t let that slow you down. It’s not nearly as daunting as the freezer in the basement that’s full of meat and hasn’t had electricity to it for over a year,” the listing continued. 

  The listing even warns prospective buyers to “wear your mask” before entering the home. 

  At $590,000, the list price is about a 16% discount of what it could sell for if the house was in tip-top shape. 

  According to The Denver Post, the price tag to fix the damages ranges between $150,000 to $230,000. This is the perfect fixer-upper for someone trying to buy a suburban house during one of the worst housing shortages. 

  Meanwhile, millions of Americans face an eviction crisis in the coming months as pandemic safety nets expire. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 20:00

• Buchanan: Who Is Really Killing American Democracy?
  Buchanan: Who Is Really Killing American Democracy?

  Authored by Pat Buchanan,

  By a vote of 30-1 in the House, with unanimous support in the Senate, Juneteenth, June 19, which commemorates the day in 1865 when news of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation reached Texas, has been declared a federal holiday

  It is to be called Juneteenth Independence Day.

  

  Prediction: This will become yet another source of societal division as many Black folks celebrate their special Independence Day, and the rest of America continues to celebrate July 4 as Independence Day two weeks later.

  Why the pessimism? Consider.

  Days before Congress acted, the Randolph, New Jersey, board of education voted to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day.

  A backlash ensued, and the board quickly voted to rescind its decision.

  Still under fire, the board voted to drop all designated holidays from the school calendar and replace them with the simple notation “Day Off.”

  The school board had surrendered, punted, given up on trying to find holidays that the citizens of Randolph might celebrate together.

  But the “day off” mandate created another firestorm, and the board is now restoring all the previous holidays, including that of Columbus.

  The point: If we Americans cannot even agree on which heroes and holidays are to be celebrated together, does that not tell us something about whether we are really, any longer, one country and one people?

  Do we still meet in any way the designation and description of us as the “one united people” that John Jay rendered in The Federalist Papers:

  “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

  Does that depiction remotely resemble America in 2021?

  Today, we don’t even agree on whether Providence exists.

  We hear constant worries these days about a clear and present danger to “our democracy” itself. And if democracy requires, as a precondition, a community, a commonality, of religious, cultural, social and moral beliefs, we have to ask whether these necessary ingredients of a democracy still exist in 21st-century America.

  Consider what has happened to the holidays that united Americans of the Greatest and Silent Generations.

  Christmas and Easter, the great Christian Holy Days and holidays of that era, were expunged a half-century ago from the public schools and the public square – replaced by winter break and spring break.

  The Bible, the cross and the Ten Commandments were all expelled as contradicting the secularist commands of our Constitution.

  Traditional Christian teachings about homosexuality and abortion, reflected in public law, are now regarded as hallmarks of homophobia, bigotry, sexism and misogyny — i.e., of moral and mental sickness.

  Not only do Americans’ views on religion and morality collide, but we also seem ever more rancorously divided now on matters of history and race.

  Was Christopher Columbus a heroic navigator and explorer who “discovered” America — or a genocidal racist? Was the colonization of America a great leap forward for civilization and mankind, or the monstrous crime of technically superior European peoples who came to brutally impose their religion, race and rule upon indigenous peoples?

  Three of the six Founding Fathers and most of the presidents of the first 60 years of our republic were slave owners: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk and Zachary Taylor, as well as the legendary senators Henry Clay and John Calhoun.

  A number of Americans now believe that Washington and Jefferson should be dynamited off Mount Rushmore at the same time the visages of the three great Confederates — Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Confederate President Jefferson Davis — are dynamited off Stone Mountain, Georgia.

  From all this comes a fundamental question.

  Is the left itself — as its cultural and racial revolution dethrones the icons of America’s past, who are still cherished by a majority — irreparably fracturing that national community upon which depends the survival of the democracy they profess to cherish?

  Are they themselves imperiling the political system at whose altar they worship?

  The country is not the polity. The nation is not the state. Force Americans to choose between the claims of God, faith, family, tribe and country — and the demands of democracy — and you may not like the outcome.

  A question needs to be put to the left in America.

  If your adversaries in politics are indeed fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and bigots, as you describe them, why would, or should, such people accept and embrace your rule over them — simply because you managed to rack up a plurality of ballots in an election?

  Free elections to decide who governs are, it is said, the central sacrament of democracy. But why should people who are described with every synonym for “deplorable” not reject the politics of compromise and instead work constantly to overthrow the rule of people who so detest them?

  Winston Churchill called democracy “the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried”

  Are both sides sticking with democracy — for lack of an alternative?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 19:30

• 'Big Brother'? San Jose Requires Gun Purchases To Be Videotaped 
  ‘Big Brother’? San Jose Requires Gun Purchases To Be Videotaped 

  Less than a month after a gunman opened fire and killed nine co-workers at a Bay Area rail hub, city leaders have implemented Big Brother’-style omniveillance to monitor firearm purchases at gun stores. 

  According to Mercury News, the San Jose City Council voted unanimously to approve a new law that requires all gun stores to record firearm purchases on video. What’s odd is that most gun stores already have surveillance cameras. However, the new law begins in September and will require shopowners to also record audio of all firearm and ammunition sales. 

  

  Mayor Sam Liccardo said the new law makes it more difficult for “straw sales,” in which a person buys a firearm or ammo for someone unable or unwilling to purchase and then transfers the goods to that person. 

  “We know a significant number of crooks and gangs get firearms through straw purchasing,” Liccardo said. “This set of ordinances is really focused on narrowing the flow of guns to those which are clearly legal and hopefully doing something to deter the flow of guns that are unlawful to own, that is to persons who are not entitled to own guns because of prior convictions or other reasons.”

  The San Jose legislation is the first of its kind in the state and will likely be challenged in court. 

  Gun-rights advocates, such as the Sacramento-based Firearms Policy Coalition, said the new rule is “outrageous,” and the mayor wants “Big Brother’-style omniveillance to record gun owners’ every move, violating the privacy of millions, especially at-risk firearm purchasers.” 

  The council’s actions are part of a 10-point gun control plan that Liccardo unveiled after the mass shooting on May 26 at a rail yard in downtown San Jose.

  The mayor also requires gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay a tax to cover taxpayer costs connected to gun violence. The council is expected to consider that proposal later in the year. 

  None of this should be surprising to readers considering the Biden administration and liberals have waged war on guns and the NRA. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 19:00

• "To The Moon": Rise In Trans-Pacific Spot Rates Is Relentless – And Accelerating
  “To The Moon”: Rise In Trans-Pacific Spot Rates Is Relentless – And Accelerating

  By Greg Miller, of FreightWaves,

  The trajectory of trans-Pacific spot rates brings to mind the catchphrase “to the moon.|

  

  Carriers implemented general rate increases (GRIs) on June 1. Spot rates rose. They enacted more GRIs on Tuesday. Rates jumped again. Another wave of GRIs is set for July 1. Add fallout from China port congestion to the mix, and it’s a recipe for rates to keep climbing.

  “Despite record highs, rate levels continue to sharply increase,” said Lars Jensen, CEO of consultancy Vespucci Maritime. Past predictions on spot rates have been repeatedly proved wrong — and far too conservative.

  Last September, carriers met with Chinese regulators, who reportedly told them: You’re making a lot of money on the trans-Pacific, so don’t push it too high. For the following three months, rates did seem to plateau at around $3,800 per FEU on the Asia-West Coast route and around $4,700 per FEU on Asia-East Coast.

  Current rates to the West and East coasts are 75% and 110% above those levels, respectively. If Chinese regulators did apply pressure to temper rate growth in Q4 2020, they definitely took their foot off the brake in 2021.

  Then came the full-year guidance from ocean carriers, released in early 2021. Analysts noted that carriers’ initial guidance implied that H2 2021 spot rates would fall materially versus rates in H2 2020.

  The beginning of the second half is now less than two weeks away. Given current rate trends and the imminent onset of peak-season demand, those earlier carrier spot-rate assumptions look increasingly implausible, barring an unforeseen event that causes a precipitous drop in U.S. demand.

  New high for Asia-East Coast

  On Tuesday, the day carrier GRIs were implemented, the Freightos Baltic Index daily assessment for Asia-East Coast rose 7% compared to Monday, to $9,889 per FEU, a fresh all-time high. Its Wednesday assessment was unchanged and was up 224% year on year (y/y).

  

  S&P Global Platts provides daily assessments of Freight All Kinds (FAK) rates. Its North Asia-East Coast FAK assessment was $7,100 per FEU on Wednesday. Drewry released its weekly rate assessment for the Shanghai-New York route on Thursday: $8,017 per FEU, up 195% y/y.

  Index moves offer guidance on the trend in the supply-demand balance, but amid current market conditions, they’re much less reflective of actual costs. Not only are different indexes reporting widely varying numbers, but these assessments do not include premium charges that are often required to get cargo loaded. Those charges can reportedly reach as high as 10,000 per FEU.

  American Shipper was told that a carrier just quoted an all-in Asia-East Coast rate of $19,990 per FEU (which seems to include a $10 “discount” to avert the $20,000 threshold).

  New high for Asia-West Coast

  The Freightos Baltic Index daily assessment for Asia-West Coast jumped 9% on Tuesday compared to Monday, to $6,829 per FEU, another record high. On Wednesday, Freightos’ rate estimate pulled back slightly, to $6,614 per FEU, up 175% y/y.

  

  Drewry’s weekly rate for Shanghai-Los Angeles was $6,358 per FEU, up 197% y/y. S&P Global Platts’ daily North Asia-West Coast FAK assessment for Wednesday was $5,800 per FEU.

  Escalating Yantian fallout

  It’s not just GRIs and U.S. import demand driving rates higher, it’s COVID-induced logjams in the Chinese ports of Yantian, Shekou and Nansha. While productivity in Yantian began gradually recovering this week, knock-on effects will continue. Cargo delayed by the outbreak should start arriving at U.S. ports en masse in July.

  According to Marine Strategies International, “Yantian handles a quarter of China’s shipments to the U.S. The impact of the congestion is clearly reflected in the freight markets and is expected to be worse than what was seen post-Suez accident.”

  S&P Global Platts provides daily assessments of Freight All Kinds (FAK) rates. Its North Asia-East Coast FAK assessment was $7,100 per FEU on Wednesday.

  Jensen commented, “Yantian is on a slow path towards a beginning recovery. But that does not mean normal shipping service levels are resuming anytime soon. Both HMM and Maersk show extensive vessel omissions for the rest of June on their mainline services.”

  Project44 released data on Thursday showing the extent of the disruption. In the first half of June, 298 container vessels with a total capacity of over 3 million twenty-foot equivalent units skipped calls in Yantian, according to project44. Even in a best-case scenario, “it could take weeks to process backlogged containers and shippers should expect serious delays,” it said.

  

  “Dwell times at YICT [Yantian International Container Terminals] also paint a grim picture,” added project44. Over the past two weeks, the seven-day average of median dwell times for export containers doubled, to 23.06 days as of Tuesday.

  

  Retail sales still exceptionally strong

  Ultimately, spot rates won’t fall until demand pulls back. It has been widely hypothesized that Americans will spend less on goods as more are vaccinated and they spend more money on services (restaurants, travel, etc.).

  Both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal partly attributed May’s seasonally adjusted 1.3% drop in retail sales versus April to a shift in consumer spending to services from goods.

  However, a far better gauge for container shipping is non-seasonally adjusted retail sales excluding vehicles and parts, given that vehicles are not shipped in boxes and that the automotive industry is being impacted by a chip shortage.

  According to this dataset — provided to American Shipper by Jason Miller, associate professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University’s Eli Broad College of Business — May spending related to containerized imports increased. 

  May’s number, $429.1 billion, was up 3.6% from April’s and up 17.5% from May 2019, prior to COVID. It was the highest monthly total of 2021 and second only to December 2020 overall.

  

  Autumn import decline?

  The National Retail Federation (NRF) foresees a moderation of containerized imports during the fall season. Consultancy Hackett Associates and the NRF produce the monthly Global Port Tracker report. The latest edition forecasts that U.S. containerized imports in October will fall 10% versus a peak hit in May.

  

  An import decline caused by congestion would not decrease spot rates. But rates would theoretically decline if there were a decrease in demand caused by a shift in consumer spending away from goods toward services, and/or if future demand fell because it had been pulled forward.

  Asked by American Shipper for the rationale behind the lower October forecast compared to the May estimate, NRF Vice President for Supply Chain and Customs Policy Jonathan Gold replied, “The numbers we’re seeing now are high because there has been so much pent-up demand and more vaccines mean people are finally getting out of the house to shop again. Retailers have had to import record amounts of merchandise to keep up.

  “We expect consumer demand to remain strong, but with the ongoing supply chain disruptions and port congestion we’ve seen for months now, many retailers are moving up their holiday imports to be sure that holiday merchandise arrives in time,” said Gold. “That means the peak season that would traditionally come in October will likely come sooner this year, and much of the holiday merchandise will already be here by October.”

  But in general, forecasting future import flows has proved extremely challenging in the pandemic era, given the lack of precedent. Case in point: At this time last year, Global Port Tracker forecast total volume for the five months from June-October 2020 of 8.28 million TEUs. The final number for those months came in at 9.95 million TEUs — 20% higher.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 18:30

• Australia Takes China To WTO Over Wine Tariffs As Biggest Export Market Gutted 
  Australia Takes China To WTO Over Wine Tariffs As Biggest Export Market Gutted 

  Australia continues reeling from its ongoing trade war with China, lately seeing retaliatory tariffs cause the price of wine to double or triple in China, essentially wiping out Australia’s biggest export market. 

  And now the Aussie government is lodging a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization – specifically over its imposition of anti-dumping duties on Australian wines.

  Saturday’s announcement marks yet another major escalation, with minister for trade, tourism and investment Dan Tehan stating alongside Agriculture Minister David Littleproud: “The government will continue to vigorously defend the interests of Australian wine makers using the established system in the WTO to resolve our differences.”

  

  Canberra further said the decision comes after “extensive consultation with Australia’s winemakers” and added that “Australia remains open to engaging directly with China to resolve this issue.”

  Tehan further told a public broadcaster: “We’ve always said that we would take a very principled approach when dealing with these trade disputes, and if we think our industry has been harmed or injured we will take all necessary steps and measures to try to address that.”

  The ongoing tensions were triggered last year after Canberra started seeking a probe into the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, now no doubt exacerbated by calls for investigating Wuhan’s labs lately going mainstream among Western allies. The demand led the Chinese diplomats in Australia hinting at “economic coercion” of Australian goods by Chinese companies.

  Saturday’s complaint to the WTO follows last year’s formal appeal to the global trade dispute body over China’s imposition of steep tariffs on imports of Australian barley.

  Breaking- the Federal Government confirms it WILL take China to the WTO over crippling tariffs placed on Australian wine. This has been expected for several weeks now pic.twitter.com/uuLLv70HX6

  — Stephen Dziedzic (@stephendziedzic) June 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Australia has since the whole spat started endured severe collateral damage on everything from seafood to coal to barley to wine to beef, and tourism sectors – along with hitting some other commodities, even timber.

  Canberra has frequently voiced its “readiness” to resume dialogue with Beijing yet there’s been no substantial breakthrough, particularly as the US has pushed its allies – most recently at the G7 summit in the UK – to take a tougher line on rolling back China’s influence. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 18:00

• Taibbi: Why Has "Ivermectin" Become A Dirty Word?
  Taibbi: Why Has “Ivermectin” Become A Dirty Word?

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

  On December 8, 2020, when most of America was consumed with what The Guardian called Donald Trump’s “desperate, mendacious, frenzied and sometimes farcical” attempt to remain president, the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news.

  “We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally.

  “There is a drug that is proving to have a miraculous impact.”

  

  Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet?

  Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.

  Subscribe and read the rest of the post here.

   

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 17:30

• Here Are All The "Technical Obstacles" Standing In The Way Of Biden's Global Corporate Tax Deal
  Here Are All The “Technical Obstacles” Standing In The Way Of Biden’s Global Corporate Tax Deal

  As we have been saying for a while now, the Biden Administration’s push to create a new minimum corporate tax likely will never succeed despite all the optimistic reporting in the western press – a reality that will ultimately limit the degree by which the US corporate tax rate can be raised to finance Biden’s ‘Great Society’ ambitions.

  Even after the G-7 struck a tentative deal during its recent meeting, a comprehensive reworking of the OECD’s international tax framework – what would constitute the biggest shakeup on the international tax front in a century – will require the consent of dozens of nations, including countries like Ireland, Indonesia and Singapore which have successfully used their low tax rates to drive economic development. Any one of these can sabotage the deal by refusing to lower tax rates.

  To try and compensate for this, the Biden Administration is promising foreign governments that they will be entitled to a bigger piece of the profits generated by American multinationals. The G-7 deal would have applied this “carrot” on “profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises.” There have even been talks to specifically exclude Amazon’s low-margin e-commerce business, allowing the tax to be based on profits from its more lucrative divisions, like AWS.

  

  Over the coming weeks, diplomats will hold talks involving more than 100 governments about the new corporate tax framework ahead of a G-20 meeting in July where Washington hopes the outlines of a deal can come together. For the plan to succeed, more than 100 nations would ultimately need to agree on it.

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Given the staggering scope of competing interests involved, as corporations jockey to be excluded from the tax while countries jockey for all sorts of special interest carve-outs, Bloomberg reports that the process could ultimately take years – even as the administration pushes for a significant breakthrough by the end of the summer – and involve a complex web of legislation to compensate for myriad “technical” complications. These include:

  • Agreeing which companies will be covered, and deciding how governments can still use tax incentives to encourage virtuous economic activity despite a minimum rate, are among several other challenges that have overshadowed years of talks hosted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  • The Intergovernmental Group of 24 developing countries, which includes Brazil, India, and South Africa, wants the scope to gradually broaden to include more than 100 companies, according to a policy note it sent to other governments last month.
  • &Nations must also decide how much tax revenue to share after the G-7 agreed to reallocate “at least 20%” of profits above a 10% margin. Developing economies want the biggest possible wedge of tax income from multinationals operating in their territories.
  • If financial services are excluded from a deal as expected, that poses another challenge since drawing a clear line between them and tech companies is getting harder.
  • Ireland remains a “hard sell”:
  • In addition, some countries including China want exclusions in the rules that allow them to attract high-tech investment with tax incentives. “Minimum tax is devolving part of tax sovereignty and how you maintain incentives over a particular kind of foreign investment,” said David Linke, Global Head of Tax & Legal at KPMG. “That’s a difficult issue.”
  • To be sure, Biden has a big carrot to offer: The OECD estimates an extra $150 billion a year could be generated from tougher US rules on foreign income and a 15% global minimum rate.
  • A deal could involve dropping a host of levies on mainly American tech firms that countries enacted unilaterally in recent years and which prompted US threats of retaliation. Negotiators must agree on which measures will be rolled back and when, so to restore trust.
  • Implementing new rules agreed at G-20 meetings in July or October will require many changes to treaties and domestic laws. This is particularly problematic for the EU, where directives on tax changes throughout the bloc require unanimity, and several countries may object to such legislation enforcing a OECD deal. Aside from Ireland’s reservations on a 15% minimum tax, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban called that plan “absurd”.
  • The US could see a challenge from Republicans, since a deal may need legislation in Congress, and treaty changes in the Senate that require a two-thirds’ majority vote.

  While Democrats largely support Yellen’s effort, with so many obstacles, it’s impossible for Biden to bank on this as he prepares to raise taxes. But since he has already committed to the spending, it’s likely that the Administration will proceed anyway, abandoning its promises to offset new spending with taxes, and ultimately allowing the Fed to monetize the bulk of the spending, which could create problems since the central bank might finally be forced to start raising interest rates before then.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 17:00

• U Of Ottawa Prof: "Sex Work" Is "The Best Thing Young People Can Do Early In Their Careers"
  U Of Ottawa Prof: “Sex Work” Is “The Best Thing Young People Can Do Early In Their Careers”

  Authored by Addison Smith via Campus Reform,

  University of Ottawa adjunct professor and Canadian Lawyer Naomi Sayers took to Twitter recently to endorse sex work for “young people,” calling it “the best thing” they can do early in their careers.

  unpopular opinion: the best thing young people can do early in their careers is do #SexWork on the side because your early career prospects will be unstable, unpredictable, low pay, likely contract work and very much exploitative. https://t.co/HRAmZFPDNX

  — Naomi Sayers, Lawyer (@kwetoday) June 13, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “unpopular opinion: the best thing young people can do early in their careers is do #SexWork on the side because your early career prospects will be unstable, unpredictable, low pay, likely contract work and very much exploitative,” Sayers wrote on Twitter Sunday.

  

  She then addressed the idea of sex work being exploitative by comparing it to capitalism.

  “That’s how capitalism works… People out here saying young people can be exploited in sex work. Literally, that’s capitalism. Lol. And quite literally, that’s any kind of work.”

  Sayers then said capitalism, along with prisons, needed to be abolished, advocating for free education, and a living wage.

  “Also, if you really want young people to not be exploited, provide them with livable wages, access to safe housing, clean water, free education. Literally. Abolish capitalism… Actually abolish prison but whatever.”

  Alex Krause, Sayers’ publicist, responded to Campus Reform’s inquiry on Sayers’ behalf, insisting that she is “IN NO WAY” promoting sex work, but rather, was attempting to draw a correlation between it and the supposedly exploitative “capitalist society”.

  “Naomi is IN NO WAY promoting or suggesting that anyone should pursue sex work, her point was to facetiously criticize capitalist society, to quote her initial tweet ‘…early career prospects will be unstable, unpredictable, low pay, likely contract work and very much exploitative,’” Krause told Campus Reform.

  When asked what Sayers meant by her tweet, Krause told Campus Reform that her “intent” was to called out “systemic racism” and “stigmatization.”

  “What Naomi meant is stated plainly. Yes, it is nuanced; but NO, she is not directly advocating for sex work. Her intent remains to call out systemic racism / stigmatization wherever it exists, and it is rampant within for-profit Canadian higher education institutions AND the prison system.”

  “Capitalism, for-profit education, and prison are inherently stigmatizing towards certain marginalized groups. As we noted in the previous email, Naomi’s lived experience of stigmatization in the legal realm is telling, considering the massive investment that she made personally and financially to pursue a legal education.”

  Krause then told Campus Reform that the interpretation of Sayers’ tweet was “indicative” of the problem Sayers is trying to address.

  “Your interpretation of her coy, and nuanced take on exploitation of capitalism vs exploitation of sex work may be indicative of the exact issue she is trying to highlight – the quickness to stigmatize and/or “slut shame” sex work.”

  Krause also explained Sayers’ critique of capitalism, insisting that it produces “exploitative career paths.”

  “Capitalism has created an economy that many people leave university indebted for decades, and in turn feel pressured to work in exploitative career paths… Sex work can be exploitative, just like any other kind of work, and in fact it predates capitalist societies. Capitalism only further incentives “have nots”/marginalized communities to pursue whatever means they must to survive.”

  Campus Reform reached out to Exodus Cry, a non-profit organization committed to fighting back against sex work and human trafficking. Director of Intervention Helen Taylor replied calling Sayers’ comments “deeply irresponsible.”

  “For Professor Sayers to flippantly encourage young vulnerable students to engage in such a harmful industry is deeply irresponsible and extremely offensive to survivors who are working hard to heal and recover from the damage prostitution inflicted on their lives,” Taylor wrote

  “The sex industry is a system of violence and gender inequality. It is not a ‘job like any other.’ It puts girls at higher risk daily of rape, theft and murder. It causes long-term PTSD comparable to torture victims… We believe education leaders ought to be protecting young women, and empowering them to aim high, not echoing pimp’s advertisements for the sex trade.” 

  *  *  *

  UPDATE:  Sayers’ publicist contacted Campus Reform after publication and insisted Sayers has no relation with the University of Ottawa as a professor.

  When Campus Reform reached out to Sayers for an interview, she replied, “my policy is not to answer questions from media in which the answer can be found on google [sic], which tweets are searchable on google now (aka do their research)”.

  Research conducted by Campus Reform found that in Sayers LinkedIn profile, she currently touts herself as “adjunct professor” at the university.

  

  “I teach the Colonialism, Territory & Treaties at UOttawa’s Institute of Indigenous Research and Studies”, states her profile.

  

  Sayers is also designated as an adjunct professor on the Ontario Paralegal Association website and the website theorg.com, which lists its mission as “to make organizations more transparent.”

  Campus Reform contacted the University of Ottawa for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 16:30

• Another Small Step For Autonomy: Shenzhen Proposes Special License Plates For Self-Driving Vehicles
  Another Small Step For Autonomy: Shenzhen Proposes Special License Plates For Self-Driving Vehicles

  We’re moving one step closer to autonomy in China…

  Southern China city Shenzhen is on the verge of granting special license plates for self driving vehicles, which would mark the first such instance in China, according to Caixin.

  It is a step that will help “promote commercialization of self-driving vehicles, such as their use as taxis, instead of being limited to tests,” experts said. It’s one small step toward widespread adoption, as autonomous vehicles aren’t currently legal in the province. 

  The proposed regulation will be sent for approval by the Standing Committee of Shenzhen People’s Congress at the end of June.

  

  Xiao Jianxiong, founder of Shenzhen-based self-driving company Autox Technologies Inc., says the highlight of the regulation is the issuance of special license plates. 

  If the regulation passes, the “Shenzhen government will issue a list of ICVs that can be sold, driven on roads and used for transportation business,” the report says.

  There’s currently no national standards on self driving vehicles in China. Since Shenzhen is a special economic zone, it has more leeway to legislate than most other provinces in China. This would make it an obvious starting point for regulations that may wind up eventually spreading across the country – not unlike how California can often lead nationwide regulation in the U.S.

  Xiao says that the number of self driving cabs could reach 50,000 by 2023 in China. So far, in Shenzhen, there are only a “few hundred” self-driving cabs. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 16:00

• NSA Agrees To Release Records On FBI's Improper Spying On 16,000 Americans
  NSA Agrees To Release Records On FBI’s Improper Spying On 16,000 Americans

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

  The National Security Agency (NSA) has agreed to release records on the FBI’s improper spying on thousands of Americans, the secretive agency disclosed in a recent letter.

  

  The agreement may signal a rift between the NSA and the FBI, according to attorney Ty Clevenger.

  Clevenger last year filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of The Transparency Project, a Texas nonprofit, seeking information on the FBI’s improper searches of intelligence databases for information on 16,000 Americans.

  The searches violated rules governing how to use the U.S. government’s foreign intelligence information trove, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama nominee who currently presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, wrote in a 2019 memorandum and order that was declassified last year.

  The FBI insisted that the queries for all 16,000 people “were reasonably likely to return foreign-intelligence information or evidence of a crime because [redacted],” Boasberg wrote. But the judge found that position “unsupportable,” apart from searches on just seven of the people.

  Still, Boasberg allowed the data collection to continue, prompting Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, to lament that court’s decision on the data collection program, authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), “is even more inexplicable given that the opinion was issued shortly after the government reported submitting FISA applications riddled with errors and omissions in the Carter Page investigation.”

  Page was a campaign associate of then-candidate Donald Trump who was illegally surveilled by the FBI.

  After the judge’s order was made public, Clevenger filed FOIA requests for information on the improper searches with both the FBI and the NSA.

  The FBI rejected the request.

  In a February letter (pdf), an official told Clevenger that the letter he wrote “does not contain enough descriptive information to permit a search of our records.”

  The NSA initially declined the request as well, but later granted an appeal of the decision, Linda Kiyosaki, an NSA official, said in a letter (pdf) this month.

  “You had requested all documents, records, and other tangible evidence reflecting the improper surveillance of 16,000 individuals described in a 6 December, 2019, FISC Opinion,” Kiyosaki wrote.

  Clevenger believes the NSA’s new position signals a rift between the two agencies, potentially because the FBI has repeatedly abused rules governing searches of the intelligence databases while the NSA has largely not.

  “There’s been a battle between them, for example, Mike Rogers tried to shut off FBI access to the NSA database back in 2016,” Clevenger told The Epoch Times, referring to how Adm. Mike Rogers, the former NSA director, cut out FBI agents from using the databases in 2016.

  “And so there’s been some history of the NSA trying to limit the FBI’s access because they know that the FBI is misusing the data intercepts,” he added.

  The NSA and FBI did not respond to requests for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 15:30

• US Navy "Shock Trials" Sparked M3.9 Quake Off Florida Coast
  US Navy “Shock Trials” Sparked M3.9 Quake Off Florida Coast

  A reported 3.9 magnitude earthquake off the Florida’s east coast Friday was actually an “experimental explosion,” the U.S. Navy confirmed.

  

  ActionNewsJax.com reports that a spokesperson with the Navy said that what was measured were a result of military “shock trials” and they are not unusual, nor is it unusual for them to register as earthquakes.

  

  Source

  The United States Geological Survey measured the seismic event roughly 100 miles off the coast of Ponce Inlet.

  Shock trials test the strength of a ship’s hull to see how it holds up in an undersea explosion (ensuring it can perform in battle).

  This is not the first time such “trials” have been undertaken off the Florida.

  

  In July 2016, a reported 3.7-magnitutde earthquake was actually an ‘experimental explosion’ caused by the U.S. Navy, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 15:00

• Bill Maher: Woke Liberals Have A Bad Case Of 'Progressophobia'
  Bill Maher: Woke Liberals Have A Bad Case Of ‘Progressophobia’

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

  In a must see video, comedian Bill Maher blast wokes who have no sense of massive progress on many liberal and Libertarian fronts.

  

  Bill Maher Maher discusses “progressophobia”, a phase coined by psychologist Steven Pinker who calls it “a brain disorder that strikes liberals and makes them incapable of recognizing progress.” 

  “If you think that America is more racist now than ever, more sexist than before women could vote, and more homophobic than before blow jobs were a felony, you have progressophobia, and should adjust your mask because it is covering your eyes.” 

  “Before 2012, every time gay marriage was put before a state’s voters it lost, 35 times in a row.  Now it’s the law of the land in every state. Even half of Republicans are for it.” 

  “Not that long ago, I knew people who went to prison for growing pot. Today, you can legally smoke it for fun in 43% of the country and I will.”

  “Even something like bullying, it still happens, but being outwardly cruel to people who are different is no longer acceptable.”

  “That’s progress. and acknowledging progress isn’t saying we’re done, or we don’t need more. And being gloomier doesn’t make you a better person.”

  “In 1958, only 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriage. Now, Gallup does not even bother asking. The last time they did in 2013, 87% approved. An overwhelming number of Americans say they want to live in a multiracial neighborhood.”

  “That is a sea change from when I was a kid.”

  “In a country that is 14% black, 18% of the incoming Harvard class is black. And since 2017, white students are not even a majority in our public colleges.”

  “Yet, there is a recurrent theme on the far left that things have never been worse.”

  

  “This is one of the big problems with wokeness. That what you say doesn’t have to make sense or jibe with the facts, and a challenge itself is equated with racism.”

  “Saying white power and privilege is at all all-time high is just ridiculous. Higher than a century ago with the Tulsa race massacre? Higher than the years when the KKK rode unchecked and Jim Crow went unchallenged? Higher than the 1960s when the Supremes and Willie Mays could not stay in the same hotel as the white people they were working with?”

  

  [In a message to Zoomers] “Here’s the thing kids. There actually was a world before you got here. We need a third marker [to go along with A.D .and B.C.]. B.Y. Before You.

  “Having a warped view of reality leads to policies that are warped. Black only dorms and graduation ceremonies, a growing belief that whiteness is a malady.”

  “It’s certainly not inaccurate to say, we’ve come a long way baby, not mission accomplished, just a long way.”

  98% Spot On

  It’s not the Zoomers or millennials who are the big problem, it’s the educators and academia pounding garbage into young kids heads.

  To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math Classes

  Please note To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math Classes

  Adversity Scores

  Adversity scores are the Latest in Dumbing Down of US Education.

  

  Starting in 2021, the SAT will assign students an ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background.

  Bill Maher noted a recent Harvard youth poll of those aged between 18 and 29, that 72% of blacks are hopeful about the future but only 46% of whites. 

  Given what’s happening with US education, we should not be surprised.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/19/2021 – 14:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• "We Got Caught Off Guard": Winchester President Discusses Ammo Shortage And What's To Come
  “We Got Caught Off Guard”: Winchester President Discusses Ammo Shortage And What’s To Come

  Authored by Emily Miller via Emily Post News,

  This is part two in a series of interviews with ammunition manufacturing executives. Read my interview with Jason Hornaday here.

  

  More than twice as many Americans have guns and do shooting sports than have golf clubs and putt on a green.

  You wouldn’t know that if you are the coastal elite. But the president of Winchester Ammunition, Brett Flaugher, who lives and works in Illinois, says these recreational  shooters are driving the historic ammo shortage in America.

  “I’ve never taken anyone shooting for the first time who didn’t enjoy it,” Flaugher told me in an interview.  “I see it every day out there – the increase in recreational shooting. A lot of people were introduced to shooting sports during the pandemic. It started with wanting to go outside, and now it’s sheer numbers from the positive experience.” Winchester, which is owned by the Olin Corporation, has manufacturing plants in Illinois, Missouri and Mississippi.

  Demand for ammunition rose with the pandemic for people who wanted a safe, outdoor activity, but then stayed at record levels. Flaugher said there are a whopping 52 million people in the U.S. who participate in shooting sports. Flaugher said demand for ammo has more than doubled in the past year and a half. In particular, gun club recreational shooting is “off the charts right now.”

  

  For those of you not familiar with ammunition, I learned about it when I visited Winchester in 2012 with other female journalists. This is what in my book, Emily Gets Her Gun (page 67) about the three types of ammo:

  Rimfire, the oldest style, has a one-piece casing of metal that goes around the whole shell, encasing the bullet, gunpowder, and primer.

  The second style is a shotgun shell—a shell case, which is a complex mix of plastic and metal, plus either a slug or a lot of small pellets.

  The third type of ammunition is the modern kind called centerfire. It is the highest-powered and most commonly used for personal defense. The brass or steel casing of the cartridge holds the gunpowder. At the base of the case is the primer that, when struck by the gun’s firing pin, ignites the powder charge. The bullet, the projectile that leaves the gun and hits the target, which is normally made of lead, is surrounded by a jacket of copper or copper plate.

  The supply chain

  The reason for the ammo shortage is that all the inventory was depleted in the first three months of the pandemic, Flaugher explained.  The stock of ammo in the warehouses, wholesalers and retail shelves sold fast. The manufacturers can’t build it back up because people are buying whatever they can find. 

  “I’m highly disappointed we can’t offer every consumer a good experience in buying ammunition. It’s not fun for us to have a situation where a customer wants to go out and hunt or shoot or buy ammunition for personal protection but can’t. It’s frustrating for us as well,” he said.

  “What they need to really understand is that Winchester and every other ammunition manufacturer are doing everything we can to get more to that consumer. Just like they got caught off guard with this level of demand, we got caught off guard too. It just takes a lot of time to be able to get to the level of production based upon the level of demand today. So, hey, we’re frustrated as much as they are. We do not like disappointing our customers.”

  Flaugher points to three factors that led to the dramatic increase in those early months that depleted the back stock of ammunition. The first thing that caused the supply chain to dry up was the increased level of concern that people have for their personal security because of the pandemic and civil unrest. 

  The second factor was the increase in people doing shooting sports, hunting and outdoor activities. The third issue is the public’s heightened concern about new gun-control laws and actions by the Biden administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress that would limit their ability to buy what they want. 

  The ammo demand matches gun sales. The NSSF adjusted NICS checks show that 21 million firearms were sold in 2020, of which about 9 million were sold to first time gun buyers.  “Every time someone buys a gun, what do they buy with it? Ammo,” said Flaugher. “It was all in just a short period of time — that so many new gun owners went into the market.” 

  Like their competitors, Winchester is trying to do things to increase output. They’ve added equipment to their factories. They have hired and trained hundreds of more people.

  

  Women and guns

  I asked Flaugher about the NSSF reports that female gun ownership has increased substantially in the last year. 

  “We’ve been talking about this at Winchester —  we’ve seen women entering gun ownership because of personal defense, that’s nothing new. But it’s continuing and at a higher rate because of the personal security concerns last year, because of pandemic, riots and defunding the police. People think they have to take responsibility for defending themselves and women are doing that as well.”

  He said there are two main reasons that people take up shooting sports, training for personal defense  and spending recreational time with friends and family. And women just want to be a part of the fun at the ranges. 

  Questions from readers

  After I interviewed Jason Hornady about the ammo shortages, I got a lot of “Emily Posts” subscribers asking me more questions. I replied in the comments that I was interviewing another unnamed ammunition manufacturer executive to get more answers. The questions below are from readers and the answers from Flaugher. 

  Q: Why can’t Winchester make enough shotgun shells for the market?

  Flaugher: “People are outdoors shooting traps, skeet, sporting clays — all that recreational activity is driving a huge amount of demand for us that we just can’t keep up at this point,” Flaugher explained. “Then you have high school shooting teams on top of that for shotgun shells.”

  Q: What percentage of ammunition goes to governmental agencies?

  Flaugher: “On the conspiracy theories, there is not one theory that I’ve heard that has an ounce of truth to it. Winchester is the primary supplier to the U.S. government’s military. And if anybody would know if the government was buying historically more than they have in previous years, we would know. They’re not.”

  Q:  Which calibers are in the greatest demand?

  Flaugher: “Well they are all in a very very high level demand. But the calibers I would tell you are in the highest demand are 9mm pistol and 5.56 – those two more than any other.”

  Q: What about supply and costs of raw materials and components?

  Flaugher: “Winchester manufactures all of its own components- the bullet, brass and primer. We get our propellent from a third party.”

  “Our key raw materials are lead and brass and resin. We are not being affected by supply of key raw materials, but — there’s a big but there — but supply has been tight, and we continue to manage that, but it has not affected our ability to produce.”

  Why are primers out of stock? 

  Flaugher: “Primers are at high demand for the same reasons that loaded ammunition is at high demand. There are more people buying them. There are more people loading them. There are more people shooting. Participation is up. It’s no different, but with one little element, the fact that we have to use more primers because we are making more ammunition. That’s a minor part of it. Most of it is just because demand is high.”

  He added that, “I think they’ll see better supply down the road.”

  The future

  So how long will it take for consumers to see the shelves stocked again? “I think you’re looking at least through 2022, a year and a half away, based upon the continuation of participation we’re seeing, based upon the level of guns being sold today,” he said.

  I asked if he wanted to address the people who are stockpiling, which frustrates my readers who just want to shoot.

  “I would encourage people not to overbuy just because they may not get it tomorrow. But it’s gonna be hard for me to convince a consumer not to buy what they want,” he said.

  “We are making more than we ever have, faster than we ever have, and we are trying to satisfy their needs as best we can right now.”

  It seems that, what started as panic buying during the pandemic, has led to a change in recreational activities for Americans, and this one doesn’t involve ugly golf clothes.

  “A lot of people were introduced to shooting sports during the pandemic. There are a lot more new gun owners out there. And I actually think people have enjoyed their experiences shooting , even though the ammunition is hard to get,” said Winchester’s president. “We offer a sport — whether for pure recreation or for personal protection — that is meaningful.”

  *  *  *
  

  Readers- This post is free for for signing up for my newsletter. But I hope you will consider supporting me to continue this work and to get access to all my posts by becoming a paid subscriber. It’s just $6 for a month. No ads and cancel anytime. You can also help me do this work by sharing this post. Thank you!

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 23:40

• Honolulu Police Used Robo-dog To Patrol Homeless Camp 
  Honolulu Police Used Robo-dog To Patrol Homeless Camp 

  The Honolulu Police Department (HPD) spent $150,045 in CARES Act money to purchase a Boston Dynamics’ four-legged robo-dog called Spot to patrol a homeless quarantine encampment, according to Vice News. 

  HPD extensively used the robo-dog to conduct various tasks, such as temperature readings, disinfecting, and patrol the city’s homeless camp. 

  

  In the last year, Honolulu is one of four police departments to adopt the headless, quadrupedal robot outfitted with high-tech sensors to sniff the world around it — Massachusetts State Police, New York City Police Department, and the Dutch National Police are the other three. 

  In January, HPD officials attempted to deflect bad press around the Spot by claiming the robot will save the department money as it would reduce labor and equipment expenses.

  With the pandemic winding down, it’s unclear if the robot is needed at all and maybe repurposed. The costs of the robot infuriated Honolulu residents, while others suggested the robot could continue to be used to surveil the homeless. 

  We’ve seen this story before and may know how it will play out, especially with what was recently observed in New York City. 

  Last fall, NYPD leased the four-legged robotic dog called “Digidog” from Boston Dynamics, which came with an optical sensor on top to patrol low-income neighborhoods. 

  Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez caused such an uproar about the robo-dog’s use. She quoted an NYPost article titled “Video shows NYPD’s new robotic dog in action in the Bronx” on Twitter. She was not fond of the “robotic surveillance ground drones that are being deployed for testing on low-income communities of color with under-resourced schools.” 

  By late April, after more community uproar, the NYPD terminated its leasing contract with Boston Dynamics and had to put Digidog down. 

  Suppose NYPD’s limited use of the robot serves as history. In that case, it’s only a matter of time before community uproar in Honolulu forces officials to suspend deployment of the robot. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 23:20

• "Real Geopolitical Risks": K Street Sets Sights On New Semiconductor Policy Amid Global Shortage
  “Real Geopolitical Risks”: K Street Sets Sights On New Semiconductor Policy Amid Global Shortage

  Authored by Alyce McFadden via OpenSecrets.org,

  A sweeping bill to encourage companies to manufacture semiconductors in the US passed the Senate on June 8 with bipartisan support. The tiny computer chips are used in practically all modern technology and the current global supply chain shortage of these semiconductors could spell disaster for American manufacturing. 

  Demand for semiconductors spiked 6.5% in 2020 as tech companies raced to produce products aimed at facilitating remote learning, work and healthcare during the coronavirus pandemic. Industry experts have warned that further disruptions of the global supply chain could have dramatic consequences in the U.S. such as limiting American companies’ ability to produce everything from iPhones to high-tech weaponry and even medical equipment. On Monday, NPR reported the global shortage forced an Alabama Hyundai plant to pause production.

  

  The United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 would allocate $92 billion to subsidize domestic production of semiconductors, and $195 billion in subsidies for technological research and development. And American businesses and research groups are lobbying hard to direct that money to their organizations.  

  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the original sponsor of the measure and seven Republican senators signed on as co-sponsors, making the bill a rare glimmer of bipartisanship in the highly-polarized Congress. The legislation combines two pre-existing bills: one aimed at bolstering scientific and technological research, and the other designed to encourage domestic semiconductor manufacturing. The bill was introduced in the House in February but hasn’t received a floor vote.

  Top lobbying groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the National Association of Manufacturers support the legislation. Earlier this year, these groups released statements urging Congress to provide economic incentives for increased domestic production of semiconductors.

  Only 12% of the world’s semiconductors are produced in the US. That’s a decrease of approximately 25% from the U.S.’s share of global production in 1990, according to a 2020 report by the Semiconductor Industry Association, the sector’s largest trade group. 

  During a Wednesday webinar on semiconductor policy, SIA President John Neuffer said potential supply chain issues could cause “real geopolitical risks” for the US if the government doesn’t create economic incentives for domestic manufacturers. “We have some blind spots that need to be addressed. The great thing is the U.S. government is focused like a laser on helping facilitate good outcomes,” Neuffer said. 

  Neuffer added that the biggest barrier to U.S. manufacturing is a lack of federal investment. “By far the biggest barriers to manufacturing in the U.S. are incentives offered overseas. What happened is that competing countries took the decision to incentivize manufacturing in their countries, massive incentives,” Neuffer said. “We absolutely need to have our government step in and offer similar incentives.”

  The semiconductor shortage that has dominated headlines can be traced to a massive increase in demand across areas from consumer electronics to cloud computing. Most notably, the automotive industry completely missed the boat on predicting how quickly demand would rebound. 📈🚙 pic.twitter.com/ecupujeNTp

  — Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center (@ACGeoEcon) June 17, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  There are 21 lobbyists registered for the SIA in 2021, and the trade association spent $300,000 on lobbying expenses in the first financial quarter. In 2020, the group spent a total of $1.2 million to lobby the federal government. 

  While disclosures for the second financial quarter aren’t available yet, lobbyists working on behalf of 64 separate clients reported lobbying activity related to the Endless Frontier Act, a 2020 bill to boost scientific research and development of technology like semiconductors. Defense contractors, software companies, hospitals, trade associations and research universities were among the diverse group of clients who lobbied on the bill. 

  Lobbyists for Microsoft filed six individual lobbying reports that mentioned the Endless Frontier Act by name. Booz Allen Hamilton, an information consulting company that works closely with the US military, reported $210,000 in lobbying expenses on the the Endless Frontier Act in one lobbying report alone.  

  “Washington is increasingly focused on issues impacting the semiconductor sector, so our industry has bulked up its presence to ensure policymakers understand that US leadership in semiconductors is essential to America’s global technology leadership, national security, economic strength and job creation,” Neuffer told The Hill last summer. 

  According to CNBC, Taiwanese factories that produce semiconductors — called foundries — made up 63% of the global revenue from sales of semiconductors. In 2020, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council spent $1.8 million to lobby the US government. 

  Although the Senate-passed bill aims to boost domestic production, foreign-owned manufacturers could benefit from federal subsidies if they elect to build foundries in the US. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2020 that the leading Taiwanese production company planned to spend $12 billion over nearly a decade to build a new foundry in Arizona.

  Some experts warn a Chinese initiative to dramatically increase the country’s semiconductor manufacturing capacity could threaten U.S. national security interests. In 2014, Chinese hackers breached computer hardware company Intel Corp.’s internal network by hacking into one microchip producer’s software, according to a Bloomberg investigation. One former FBI official told Bloomberg the hack demonstrated “an example of the worst-case scenario if you don’t have complete supervision over where your devices are manufactured.”

  Chinese manufacturers controlled about 6% of the market share of semiconductor production in 2020. 

  “There’s a big part of the performance of the actual chip that is tied to the manufacturing process,” Favre said. “The fact that these latest generations of technologies are 100% off shore, that does create a vulnerability.” During his first two months in office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing the Department of Commerce to identify “risks in the semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging supply chains and policy recommendations to address these risks.”  

  Biden reiterated his commitment to bolstering domestic manufacturing in a news conference at the G7 summit Sunday, emphasizing the importance of keeping pace with China’s technological output. 
  “We’re in a contest, not with China per se,” Biden said, but “with autocrats, autocratic governments around the world, as to whether or not democracies can compete with them in a rapidly changing 21st century.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 23:00

• Philadelphia Man Charged With Fraud After Using PPP Loan To Buy Real Estate, Motorcycle, Diamond Jewelry
  Philadelphia Man Charged With Fraud After Using PPP Loan To Buy Real Estate, Motorcycle, Diamond Jewelry

  There’s no doubt that the PPP program was one of the worst allocations of taxpayer capital (read: inflation) by the U.S. government in history. While many were helped during Covid by the program, the “free money” of PPP loans attracted all types of fraud and abuse, only a small sliver of which will be investigated. 

  But occasionally, the government does turn over a rock and get their man, which was the bad news for 50 year old Devron Brown of Philadelphia, who had decided to play the odds on the fraudulent PPP loan roulette wheel – and lost. Brown was charged with stealing nearly $1 million in PPP funds during the pandemic and, instead of using the funds for business needs, turning around and using them to buy a house in Florida, cars and jewelry, according to The Philly Voice. 

  Brown fraudulently obtained roughly $937,500 in PPP funds and was charged with two counts of bank fraud and nine counts of money laundering. the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said this week. 

  

  The complaint against Brown alleges “a PPP loan application that contained false representations regarding his alleged construction business, Just Us Construction Inc.” It alleges he misrepresented “the number of employees, the wages paid to them, the payroll taxes paid on those wages, and the intended use of the PPP loan proceeds.”

  He used the loan for a new residential property in Florida, a motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle, a luxury automobile, and diamond jewelry, the complaint says. 

  Acting United States Attorney Jennifer Arbittier Williams said: “Paycheck Protection Program funds are intended to help American small-businesses continue paying their employees, even if revenues have dropped dramatically due to the pandemic. Thieves who attempt to take these funds are taking advantage of others’ misfortune – ripping them off while also ripping off all taxpayers who fund the program. As alleged, Brown fraudulently obtained nearly $1 million in funds that could have helped struggling businesses and individuals.”

  Michael J. Driscoll, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia Division concluded: “The Paycheck Protection Program was created to provide emergency financial assistance to businesses and employees battered by the pandemic. Unfortunately, criminal opportunists with dollar signs in their eyes promptly got to work trying to defraud the federal government by seeking a cut of the funds. The FBI will continue to aggressively pursue those using the money from the PPP to bankroll their own lavish lifestyles at taxpayers’ expense.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 22:40

• Reading, Writing, And Ratting Each Other Out
  Reading, Writing, And Ratting Each Other Out

  Authored by Nicole Neily via RealClearEducation.com,

  Much ink has been spilled over the illiberal education that college students receive these days, and how ivory tower-incubated ideas are now finding their ways into society at large. But less well-known is how some of the more devious – and unconstitutional – policies employed by America’s colleges and universities have begun to migrate down to the K-12 level as well.

  

  One such program is the bias response team, which encourages students and staff to file reports about perceived “bias incidents” through portals on the school’s website – anonymously if individuals so choose. Reports are sent to a school’s “team,” which is often composed of assorted university officials such as campus police, deans of students, Title IX administrators, and diversity employees. A 2017 report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education identified 231 bias response teams operating in higher education institutions across the country, a number which has undoubtedly risen since then.

  As Jeffrey Aaron Snyder and Amna Khalid wrote in the New Republic in 2016, “They degrade education by encouraging silence instead of dialogue, the fragmentation of campuses into groups of like-minded people, and the deliberate avoidance of many of the most important—and controversial—topics across all academic disciplines.”

  It should surprise nobody that these programs have become weaponized in recent years. Students frequently reported for discussing political and religious topics – which are constitutionally protected on public university campuses, much to the chagrin of these bureaucratic star chambers. Once made aware of these programs’ existence, most rational students simply refrain from discussing potentially controversial topics altogether out of an abundance of caution; as a result, whole lines of discussion and arguments that might be found on a nightly news show quietly and conveniently disappear from college campuses.

  But to a growing number of K-12 administrators, that chilling isn’t a bug – it’s a feature. And it’s why they’re spreading.

  In California, the Acalanes Union High School District maintains an online portal “for students to report incidents of harm – acts of racism, bias, sexism, microaggressions, etc.”

  In Massachusetts, Wellesley Public Schools (WPS) maintains a policy on “Responding to Bias-based Incidents,” which lists “telling rude jokes” and “using a slur or insult toward a student or their family” as examples of bias-based behavior; slides of a mandatory teacher training provide examples of microaggressions in the classroom, such as “mispronouncing the names of students” and “scheduling tests and project due dates on religious or cultural holidays.” Microaggressions in the workplace include saying, “you’re so articulate,” and “my principal is crazy!”

  In Maryland, the Montgomery County Public Schools plan to launch an online portal where students and parents can report “bias-related” or “hate” incidents.

  In Massachusetts, Newton Public Schools are in the process of building out a new discrimination and bias response portal, which will be distinct from their existing bullying prevention & intervention website.

  This month, a bias response program in Virginia became the target of a federal lawsuit; the Liberty Justice Center is challenging Loudoun County Public Schools’ “Share, Speak Up, Speak Out” program, administered by the district’s “Student Equity Ambassadors,” among other programs.

  Bias response programs have come under significant criticism by federal appellate courts, and with good reason. In an October 2019 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that students at the University of Michigan faced “an objective chill based on the functions of the Response Team.” In October 2020, a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the University of Texas’ Campus Climate Response Team “represents the clenched fist in the velvet glove of student speech regulation.”

  Students absorb more in school than simply lesson plans; they’re also learning how to interact with individuals who come from different backgrounds and viewpoints. Bias response teams send a clear message not only that certain opinions are wrong but that the correct coping method, when confronted with such a situation, is to “go tell the grownups.” 

  Creating the expectation that authority figures can – or should – adjudicate all interpersonal disputes isn’t just denying children the opportunity to develop better interpersonal skills. It’s also a slippery slope to big government, which by necessity must expand to fulfill this new role.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 22:20

• Fears Of Missing Out (On Promotions) Is Pushing More Young Workers Back To The Office
  Fears Of Missing Out (On Promotions) Is Pushing More Young Workers Back To The Office

  If you ask most American white-collar workers about the last 16 months or so, most will probably confirm that working from home was one of the few silver linings of a once-in-a-century pandemic. But as bankers from JPM, Goldman and others return to the office, other white collar employees might see last repercussions for their careers if they continue to work 100% remote.

  

  In fact, a recent study seemed to confirm exactly that: workers who linger home too long might miss out on an important path to promotions and higher income.

  Before we blame younger workers for malingering, let’s remember it was young white-collar workers like the overworked Goldman analysts who saw the brunt of the negatives of remote work. Many reported feeling pressured to stay at their desks all day and night. Remember those junior Goldman analysts who went public with their claims?

  Many younger workers are voluntarily returning to the office, according to Bloomberg.

  Why? Because while they value the quality of life they have working from home, they’re also worried about the long-term damage to their careers. And as more firms call workers back to the office, younger workers are generally among the first and the most eager.

  This is all reflected in a new survey from Sharp Corp, which shows that nearly 60% of respondents said working in a modern, collegiate office environment has become more important to them over the past year. Even though a majority of respondents under 30 say remote work made them more productive, more than half of the survey’s respondents across Europe (ranging in age from 18 to 45) say they feel anxious about a lack of training and career opportunities when thinking long-term about the future of work.

  According to the survey, more than half of workers aged 21-30 stressed the importance of being able to collaboratively work with colleagues in person.

  Nearly 60% of respondents said that working in a “modern, collegiate office environment” is more important to them now thanks to the pandemic.

  

  What’s more, some 60% of workers between the ages of 18 and 40 would prefer hybrid work model.

  Sophia McCully, a 28-year-old working in public policy research, has worked from home ever since starting her current role. She believes the enforced isolation has had a significant impact on her professional development.

  “I think the ability to make those connections and network has been more difficult,” McCully said. Starting a new job in a virtual setting also made it “harder to get yourself across,” at least at first.

  Still, while young workers may crave in-person connections and relief from pressures on their health and wellbeing, they remain skeptical of returning to the status quo before Covid-19. Instead they are looking for value and purpose in office-based activities while retaining the right to work remotely. McCully said working from home allowed her to spend time with her young child while remaining professionally productive, and wants that to remain an option.

  Unfortunately for the many workers who prefer working from home, those who don’t ever report to the office miss out on developing important ‘soft’ skills. Which is why some consultants are pushing their clients to require new hires to report to the office, at least for the first few months.

  Helen Jamieson, managing director of human resources consultancy Jaluch, who has focused on hybrid solutions for over a decade, says young workers who may still wish to work mostly at home “don’t understand what they may be missing” in terms of long-term career development.

  Jamieson advocates dedicated “collaboration days,” and suggests that new hires and young staff could work mostly from offices during their first six months, before opening up work-from-home options.

  The calculus, Jamieson says, is to set aside personal preferences and focus on balancing business needs with a strategy for staff engagement and retention. “Because quite frankly if companies don’t look after young people, they’ll lose them.”

  In other words, young workers who continue to work 100% remote might see their careers suffer for it.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 22:00

• Macleod: There's Just Too Much 'Darn' Liquidity
  Macleod: There’s Just Too Much ‘Darn’ Liquidity

  Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

  Yesterday, the FOMC released its June statement which only served to remind us that its members are powerless in the face of inflationary conditions. They refuse to accept the price consequences of monetary inflation, still clinging on to an increasingly untenable hope that price rises are “transitory”.

  The fact of the matter is that the world is now awash with excess money, the two greatest inflationists being the Fed and the Bank of England. In the US, the Fed’s $120bn monthly QE continues to goose financial asset values, while the US Government has spent a further trillion into circulation from its general account at the Fed. This tidal wave of money threatened money market funds totalling over $4 trillion with negative rates, thereby “breaking the buck”, which is why the Fed has increased its outstanding reverse repos to $721bn.

  Interest rates will have to increase far earlier than the Fed admits to stop foreigners dumping dollars, not just for commodities which have nearly doubled since March 2020, but for other currencies as well.

  

  Welcome to the everything bubble, whipped up by American and British neo-Keynesian policy makers who are now increasingly cornered by their own monetary fallacies.

  Introduction

  Courtesy of the central banks, the world is enmeshed in an everything bubble. We used to be most aware of the Bank of Japan’s extraordinary money printing to corner the Japanese ETF market —but that is no longer a topic of conversation. The Bank of Japan now owns about ¥48 trillion invested in ETFs ($447bn), the most aggressive money-printing stock ramp in the style of John Law and his Mississippi bubble relative to the size of the market in modern times. But today’s monetary planners have dismissed empirical evidence of any dangers as pre-Keynesian, and therefore irrelevant.

  The worst inflation is not down to the Japanese but to the Anglo-Saxons, as Figure 1 illustrates, which dates from before the central banks’ first introduction of extraordinary measures following the Lehman crisis.

  

  Anyone who hoped that the inflationary response to the financial crisis of 2008/09 was to be just a one-off event will have been sadly disillusioned. And anyone who thought that China, or Japan with their money were the most irresponsible nations —a common perception not long ago, would have got that wrong as well. Even the ECB looks relatively moderate, compared with the British and Americans.

  Of course, as well as the expansion of central bank balance sheets there are other factors in monetary policy which we can with justification label as inflationary. But it is interesting that the Bank of England’s chief economist has chosen this summer to leave the Bank, deciding at the same time to no longer toe the official line about rising prices. While some of his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee have only recently been rooting for negative interest rates and from the Governor down are now claiming that increasing prices are only temporary, Andrew Haldane appears to be ducking out. And one wonders why sterling is not weakening with the dollar, given the Bank of England’s solidarity with the Fed in terms of common monetary policies. The message from Figure 1 is that sterling, which rallied from $1.15 on the back of dollar weakness to 1.41 currently, should not have rallied much at all —particularly as the perceived value of the Brexit dividend is being superseded by the economic effects of Covid and its extended lockdowns.

  Evidenced by the launch of a €1 trillion Covid stimulus package this week, the destruction being wrought by the ECB is economic as well as monetary. The effect is to keep Eurozone bond yields suppressed (read this as mispriced), with even bankrupt Italy sporting a sub-1% ten-year government bond yield. We all know, or should know, the true purpose of this stimulus, and that is to fund and further facilitate the future funding of profligate Eurozone governments. Don’t be surprised if productive businesses get none of it. And presumably, without the Bundesbank’s monetary conservativism the ECB would beissuing even more euros.

  China comes out of this comparison relatively well. The expansion of the PBOC’s balance sheet has been the smallest in percentage terms by a long way, its government debt to GDP ratio is the lowest by degrees of magnitude, and the PBOC’s policy planners have been putting the brakes on credit expansion for the best part of a year. This suggests that the yuan is significantly under-priced against dollars, with the future potential to attract inward capital flows, seeking to escape from the declining currencies of the more profligate nations.

  We should bear China’s different approach in mind, because the geopolitical consequences of a stronger yen becoming attractive for international capital flows will lead to an obvious contrast between the US impoverishing its population through currency debasement, while the Chinese enjoy an improving standard of living. Furthermore, unless Americans suddenly decide to decrease their spending and increase their savings, China’s trade surplus with the US will continue to increase. Despite the slowing monetary growth reflected in GDP numbers, the Chinese appear to be in a far stronger position than their Western counterparts, both economically and monetarily.

  The consequences of monetary expansion everywhere are bound to lead to rising prices, reflecting the loss of purchasing power for diluting national currencies. So far, use of tightly controlled consumer price indices to hide the evidence has concealed the true extent of rising prices, providing goal-sought answers of approximately two per cent all round. But so formidable has the monetary dilution since Covid lockdowns become that the reality of rising prices for essentials such as food and energy is becoming all to obvious, and prices are beginning to explode upwards.

  In Figure 1 above, leading the charge is the US dollar, which should worry us all, because it is everyone else’s reserve currency. And while similar statements emanate from the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, it is those of the Fed’s FOMC, which met this week, that always have global significance.

  The FOMC’s problem

  The Fed’s money-printing has continued apace, so much so that severe market distortions are reflecting it, even for those with badly impaired economic vision. As the US economy is re-opening following the easing of covid restrictions, policy planners expected there to be increased demand for money, reflecting the ramping up of consumer goods production to meet demand and therefore of the necessary working capital. But looking at bank credit to non-financials (loans and leases in the Fed’s H.8 table) there is no evidence this is happening. So far, the banks do not appear to be keen to lend or perhaps their customers to borrow, as shown in the St Louis Fred’s chart below.

  

  Loans and leases saw an increase ahead of lockdown, when banks recognised that they must bridge their customers’ cash flow, or risk driving them into non-performing territory. Unsold inventory was stacking up, which over the last year has gradually been cleared, leaving little or no product on the shelves while reducing the need for working capital.

  But in an economy hooked on money and credit expansion, the Fed had to keep the plates spinning, which it did and still does by goosing financial markets with $120bn of QE every month. For the Fed it is vital that market confidence remains intact, and an unprecedented monthly QE injection had this objective in mind. With bond markets underwritten by the Fed’s bond buying through QE, the US Treasury was able to raise large quantities of money through bond sales in anticipation of an unprecedented level of unfunded spending.

  Between them policy planners at the Fed and the US Treasury made an important error. The Keynesians, who show little sympathy with supply-side economics, believed that consumer spending at the end of lockdowns would automatically lead to increased production. Instead, after decades of perfecting just-in-time production methods, businesses have been faced with a lethal combination of continuing supply chain disruptions, higher commodity and raw material prices, and a labour force that appears reluctant to return to work. The assumption that stimulation of consumption would trigger an automatic rebound in supply of products and services turns out to be wide of the mark.

  If the banks have been cautious in their lending it was with good reason, and it is hardly surprising that loans and leases in bank credit have failed to increase. Whether it is the banks worried about risk, or in these conditions, businesses seeing no reason to demand more working capital without the production capacity to deploy it is a moot point. But it is wholly consistent with a catastrophic supply-side failure.

  For consumers it is rather like getting dressed to the nines to attend a ball only to find there’s no one to dance with.

  The liquidity problem was foreseeable

  Without the expansion of production, there is an excess of liquidity in the American financial system, which explains why in recent weeks bond yields have fallen and a feeling of deflationary conditions has emerged. It explains a mystery unfathomed by some commentators who only look at the collateral side of reverse repos. The reason outstanding reverse repos have hit a record of $721bn is not due to insufficient collateral in the banking system, but having overcooked it, the Fed sees that there is too much unused liquidity. And making the situation worse, instead of raising money through bond sales, the US Treasury has been drawing down on its balance at the General Account with the Fed —technically putting money into circulation which was not there before.

  Since last October, about a trillion dollars have appeared in the money supply in this way. And at the same time, the Fed has issued nearly a further trillion through QE. All this excess liquidity with a banking system constrained by lack of balance sheet capacity threatens that market interest rates would turn negative.

  If market rates went negative, money market funds would almost certainly “break the buck” leading to a crisis at the heart of the financial system for this $4.5 trillion market, whose investors have been led to understand that their funds are safe. The Fed responded to these concerns by fixing the reverse repo rate at 0.05% in yesterday’s FOMC statement.

  It is little wonder that the Fed has had to claw some of this liquidity back, for fear of driving interest rates into negative territory. This situation was foreshadowed in a Goldmoney article last February, when I pointed out that there was a risk these events would lead to market-imposed negative interest rates, particularly if the Fed did not extend the temporary suspension of the supplementary leverage ratio and increase the counterparty limit of $30bn on its reverse repo facility. It did increase the RRP limit to $80bn but did not extend the SLR suspension.

  Back in February and in the following month at the quarter-end, we were able to see these conditions evolving. The difference, for the Fed at least, was their blindness to supply-side issues, and that price inflation would rapidly accelerate beyond the bounds of statistical control. And with independent analysts, such as John Williams at Shadowstats.com estimating that price inflation is now over 11% annually, the distortion in financial markets awash with excess liquidity at zero interest rates is increasingly destabilising.

  The question for the Fed now is that with all their policy levers having failed, how should they proceed? If they taper, the stock market will almost certainly crash, undermining the Fed’s cherished policy of using the stock market to keep everyone optimistic. If they take the lead in raising interest rates, that goes against Keynesian religion and is simply beyond contemplation. That is why policy default in yesterday’s FOMC statement was to give the briefest of nods to the inflation threat and reaffirm the conviction that left alone the problem will go away.

  Interest rates should be rising

  The signal being received by the policy planners from the apparent lack of demand for money is that deflation has the upper hand, an argument they are likely to milk for all its worth: the idea that there is too much money in the system rarely occurs to them. But with M1 money supply standing at $19 trillion in a $20 trillion economy…

  Admittedly, the statisticians bolstered M1 last February by shifting most of M2 into it, but the point remains that there is far too much money in the economy relative to genuine economic activity. There is a latency in its absorption, which means that the liquidity bulge is only temporary before markets adjust for it. The adjustment is emerging through rising prices because in the absence of an increase in savings it is the purchasing power of the currency that inevitably compensates for excess monetary supply over the true demand for it.

  There seems to be confusion in the minds of macroeconomists on this issue. At a time when the purchasing power of the dollar is set to fall, establishment thinking in the markets appear to be signalling a decline in economic activity consistent with deflationary conditions. That being the case, neo-Keynesians argue that declining demand leads to falling prices; or put another way a rise in the dollar’s purchasing power. The issue, as often is the case, is defining deflation. If it exists —and that is open to question — it implies a contraction in the total quantity of money and credit, and the consequences that follow, which is not the condition that is faced. And we can reasonably assume that any further tendency for bank credit to non-financial borrowers to contract will be more than countered by increases in fiscal deficits financed by monetary expansion.

  For the state to become the motor driving the economy when free markets are deemed to fail is basic Keynesian philosophy. Meanwhile, as if to drive the deflation argument home, recently we have seen a steadying in the dollar’s trade weighted index of over 2% above recent lows (yesterday the TWI rose 0.75%) and a recent fall in bond yields. Figure 2 charts the 10-year US Treasury bond yield and figure 3 shows the dollar’s TWI.

  

  

  No doubt, the Fed and Fed watchers are closely following these charts. For them, it is probably comforting that the markets do not appear to take an inflation threat as seriously as the few independent commentators who have warned that interest rates will be forced to rise later this year —and not later in 2022 as the Trimmers in the FOMC have now suggested. But the dispassionate view is that the inflation threat is not only real, but when markets wake up to it there is nothing the Fed or the US Treasury can do to prevent the consequences.

  The underlying reality is that without interest rates being maintained at a rate which discourages foreign holders from selling the dollar either for other currencies or for “real assets” such as the commodities and raw materials used in the course of production, the purchasing power of the dollar has the potential to fall dramatically. This phenomenon is already visible in commodity prices, as Figure 4 clearly illustrates.

  

  Since the Fed reduced interest rates to the zero bound in March 2020 and began QE of $120bn every month, the near doubling of this index tells us that the purchasing power of the dollar in terms of commodities has nearly halved. The fact that the dollar has only declined by about 13.7% against the euro (the largest component of its TWI) indicates that the euro has also lost purchasing power, though not to the same extent as the dollar. For the Fed to claim that inflation is merely transitory is either being disingenuous or ignorant of the theories of exchange —it matters not which.

  The Fed is already judged guilty in the court of commodity markets. It is hard to see how it will not similarly be judged by other forms of evidence, being the broader consequences of inflationary monetary policies. With foreign ownership of dollar denominated financial assets and cash deposits at $30 trillion, the dollar is more exposed than any other significant currency to the judgement of the foreign exchanges. Consequently, as it becomes clear to foreigners that the overweighting of dollars is no longer safe, the downside of the Triffin dilemma will become manifest.

  Triffin described the situation where the issuer of a reserve currency has to deploy ultimately destructive inflationary policies to supply the world’s demand for it, until a currency crisis inevitably leads to its ultimate rejection. The last such crisis was also ahead of a period of escalating dollar inflation, commencing with the failure of the London gold pool in the late 1960s, followed by the abandonment of the Bretton Woods agreement in August 1971 and the roaring price inflation of the 1970s decade.

  Today, unprecedented market distortions coupled with the accumulation of dishonest statistics and Keynesian cluelessness is considerably more dangerous than the failure of the London gold pool and the ending of Bretton Woods. Therefore, when Triffin’s downside for the dollar materialises this time, we can expect the deterioration to be sudden and very public. That appears to describe the cliff-edge upon which we now sit.

  Monetarists who understand, as Milton Friedman put it, that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, have just half the story. Their understanding is that the relationship between money and subsequent prices is essentially mechanistic. It is not, as the following well documented example attests. Between April 1919 and March 1923, the German government’s cumulative increase in debt, i.e., the difference between revenues and spending financed by a mixture of savings and monetary inflation, measured in gold marks was an increase of 203%. Yet the unbacked paper marks in circulation increased 207 times over the same timescale, and its purchasing power declined from three paper marks to one gold mark, to 5,047 to one. So, an increase in the cumulative, mostly inflation-financed government spending of 203% had a disproportionately destabilising effect on the currency.

  Only then did the final collapse in the paper mark begin, taking it to one trillion paper marks to one gold mark in about six months. This was what the Austrian economist von Mises termed the crack-up boom; the phenomenon whereby the general public, finally realising that the state’s paper currency was never going to stabilise, finally dumped it for anything, needed or not.

  The lesson from this and many other sorry tales involving state-issued currencies, backed by nothing more than a dwindling faith in the issuer, is that the collapse of a currency is always unexpected by its users, and when it happens can be swift. Today, a market awakening will have to accommodate a stock market crisis, a bond market crisis and the realisation that all financial assets are badly mispriced. If John Williams at Shadowstats is right, and undoubtedly, he is, then a fall in the dollar’s purchasing power currently annualised at over 11% will require a suitable interest rate to compensate foreign holders. But even a move of less than half that will take out over-indebted corporations and force the US Government to accept cuts in spending that it is simply not prepared to make.

  Its advisers are Keynesian to a man (or woman). They long ago dismissed classical economic theory, and offer no solutions, only more bad advice. The advice is likely to be to chuck more money at the problem, in order to stabilise stock markets, fund the government’s ballooning debt and to subsidise industrial production. They are even likely to opine that a lower dollar stimulates economic activity and perhaps that price controls should be introduced.

  Along with dollar-denominated assets being sold by foreigners, the currency is set to continue its collapse. As we might have seen with the resignation of the Bank of England’s chief economist, unpalatable truths will continue to be rejected. And as the purchasing power of the currency declines, public demand for it will increase, not because it is wanted per se, but because its purchasing power is declining faster than it is being pushed into circulation and more is required to cover even diminishing real levels of spending.

  This is what kept the printing pressings working 24/7 in Germany in 1923. With electronic money, there is no physical restraint, and the expansion of money supply will take on a life of its own, potentially speeding up the process. What took place between May and November 1923 when the paper mark finally hit the wall could easily be compressed into a matter of just a few weeks.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 21:40

• 'Take Your Rubbers Home': Social Distancing To Squash Horny Olympians Sex Drive At Games 
  ‘Take Your Rubbers Home’: Social Distancing To Squash Horny Olympians Sex Drive At Games 

  Tokyo Olympic organizers are handing out 150,000 condoms at next month’s Games to athletes staying in the Olympic village. But there’s a twist. According to Reuters, the Olympic village has strict social distancing rules and COVID-19 measures that organizers are requesting athletes not to have sex with one another but rather save the condoms. 

  Being in good physical shape indeed gives a person more sexual fitness. So imagine super-athletes at the Olympic village. Their sex drive must be off the charts. For years, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has distributed condoms to the Olympic village. Rubbers have been given out at the Games since the 1988 Seoul Olympics to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS.

  

  But this year is different. Olympic athletes will be given condoms but told to keep their distance and take them home. Social distancing at the Games means fewer opportunities for athletes to mingle with each other. 

  “The distribution of condoms is not for use at the athlete’s village, but to have athletes take them back to their home countries to raise awareness” of HIV and AIDS issues, said Tokyo 2020 in an emailed response to questions by Reuters.

  While Olympians are advised to take their condoms home, foreign fans have been barred from entering all sporting events. Those who are eligible to enter stadiums will need a negative COVID-19 test or vaccination history. Once inside, spectators might be forbidden from eating, drinking, and cheering. 

  The Games are likely to become a financial disaster for Japan who went well over budget to stage it.

  But the good news is that President Joe Biden and the other G-7 leaders gave the nod to Japan that the Games must go on despite the Japanese public vastly opposing the Games, which were moved from last summer due to the outbreak of COVID-19. However, support is starting to climb as athletes begin to arrive and the vaccine rollout program in the country progresses.

  Suffice to say, these Olympians should probably hold onto these condoms because of a shortage that has materialized since the virus pandemic disrupted global supply chains. But again, super horny athletes piled into the Olympic village may otherwise suggest that mingling will still happen. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 21:20

• "This Has To End": California Landlords Call For End To Eviction Moratorium
  “This Has To End”: California Landlords Call For End To Eviction Moratorium

  Authored by Vanessa Serna via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Some California landlords are pleading with state and local governments to end the eviction moratorium on rental properties as planned June 30, rather than extending it.

  

  Dan Faller, founder and chairman of the Apartment Owners Association of California, said some residents have been taking advantage of the moratorium.

  “They’re stealing from apartment owners, and it’s legal,” Faller told The Epoch Times.

  Faller said he was frustrated with tenants using the moratorium as an excuse to avoid paying rent and save money. He gave an example of a young man who told his landlord he was saving money for a house and wouldn’t be paying rent.

  Even with knowledge of tenants taking advantage of the moratorium, landlords are unable to evict them, Faller said.

  “They can’t do anything about it,” he said. “He’ll move out when we have the opportunity to evict him.

  “The big owners have the big buildings; they have enough units that spread it out, and they can stay in business. But it’s the older couple who owns a duplex or a triplex. … They save their money to buy it, and they were counting on it being their retirement, and now the tenants don’t pay.”

  Gov. Gavin Newsom on May 10 announced a plan to repay property owners 100 percent of rent owed from tenants that qualify for rental assistance due to COVID-19. However, more than a month later, Faller said the money hasn’t arrived.

  In a letter addressed to Newsom on June 17, the Apartment Owners Association advocated for the rights of landlords, urging the state to move past rent control regulations.

  “Why are our lifesavings being redistributed to others?” Faller said in the letter. “We cannot afford to cover another family’s living expense. We’ll eventually lose all of our life’s savings. We have already lost a large amount that we will never recover.”

  The letter was also sent to 25 mayors of the state’s largest cities.

  While it’s unclear whether Orange County cities will vote on an emergency eviction moratorium ordinance, the city of Costa Mesa voted to suspend the moratorium in April.

  The Costa Mesa City Council voted in favor of revoking the moratorium on April 6, after City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison said she’s heard from property owners, business owners, and landlords to end the moratorium.

  Harrison said the city was seeing economic improvements at the time, and in removing the moratorium, businesses could receive payments and continue moving forward.

  The ordinance was passed and gave tenants a 120-day period to allow them to pay past-due rent.

  California’s eviction moratorium for renters is set to expire June 30, but some cities and counties are passing emergency ordinances to extend it.

  The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 7 extended the city and county’s moratorium on evictions until September. Its ordinance seeks to extend renter protection from evictions, non-payment of rent, and late fees.

  The San Diego County Board of Supervisors on May 4 voted in favor of rent control regulations and the prohibition of evictions for all rental units beginning June 3 and lasting for 60 days.

  Meanwhile, the California Apartment Association (CAA) is leading a grassroots effort to urge lawmakers to reject an eviction moratorium extension.

  “I beg you to please end this … moratorium this June 30,” a housing provider wrote to lawmakers in a statement. “I have three separate tenants that are working and obviously not affected by the COVID situation but decided to take advantage and decided not to pay their rents. This has to end.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 21:00

• Russian Spy Ship Now Loitering Off North Oahu
  Russian Spy Ship Now Loitering Off North Oahu

  Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are heating up over the Pacific in the last month. 

  To recap, we first noted a Russian Navy surveillance ship parked in international waters off Kauai, an island in the Central Pacific, part of the Hawaiian archipelago, last month. Fast forward to last weekend, and three armed Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors were scrambled as the Russian Navy conducted a massive war exercise 300 to 500 miles west of the Aloha State. Now, the same Russian spy ship is causing another stir – this time north of Oahu. 

  U.S. Naval Institute News, which was the first to report the ship’s presence last month, loitering in international waters off Kauai, delayed a Missile Defense Agency missile test. According to Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the vessel is a Russian Navy Vishnya-class auxiliary general intelligence ship Kareliya (SSV-535), which was detected this week just north of Oahu. 

  

  “U.S. Indo-Pacific Command is monitoring the Russian vessels operating in international waters in the Western Pacific,” Navy Capt. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for the Oahu-based command, said. “As part of our normal daily operations, we closely track all vessels in the Indo-Pacific area of operations through maritime patrol aircraft, surface ships and joint capabilities.”

  He added that “We operate in accordance with international law of the sea and in the air to ensure that all nations can do the same without fear or contest and in order to secure a free and open Indo-Pacific. As Russia operates within the region, it is expected to do so in accordance with international law.”

  Much of the attention this week has been centered around Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Joe Biden’s meeting in Geneva while the events playing out around Hawaii and in the Pacific, as Russia flexes its naval muscles, go unnoticed by the mainstream media. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 20:40

• Investigative Issues: An Interview With Donald Trump, Unbowed
  Investigative Issues: An Interview With Donald Trump, Unbowed

  Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations (emphasis ours),

  In a wide-ranging interview from the corner office atop his eponymous New York City tower last week, an unfiltered Donald Trump showed he has lost none of his edge as he attacked President Biden’s ethics, demanded reparations from China for COVID-19, and advanced his claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

  

  Here are some of the highlights, as the former president held forth on a range of issues in his inimitable style.

  Chinese Influence Over the Bidens, and America

  Trump – whose administration was hobbled by false charges that he was beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — asserted that China has American politicians, “especially Biden and the son [Hunter Biden] … wrapped around their finger. They know so much about Biden that’s so illegal … [that the president] can no longer be a person that takes on China because they can blackmail him like nobody’s ever been blackmailed before.”

  “China has tremendous power over the Biden administration because of Biden himself,” Trump added. “There was tremendous money paid to the Biden family – not only China; there were numerous other countries too, and it’s not allowed to be spoken about.”

  Trump did not provide evidence for these claims, although a U.S. Senate committee report on the Biden family’s business dealings raised questions about its involvement with Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian nationals and entities. Information found on a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden – who is facing a federal investigation into his taxes – has also raised questions about the President Biden’s ties to his son’s questionable affairs.

  “We were doing great with China. I was going to be doing things that would’ve put us on a course that would’ve been forever great, and now we have people – they almost can’t be tough on China because China knows too much about them,” Trump said. “It’s a very sad thing.”

  With respect to the political class more broadly, Trump asserted that “China’s got the strongest lobbying machine you’ve ever seen. … You go to Washington and try and hire somebody to oppose China? Can’t do it. They’ve got everybody.” 

  The 2020 election 

  Trump remains adamant that the results were illegitimate. “You’ve heard the expression that the person who counts the votes is far more important than the candidate, right? I never thought much about it; turned out to be right. It’s a corrupt election and you’ll never hear me say anything else. And they’re vicious. … They go after you for saying it.”

  Although it is widely disputed that any alleged improprieties influenced enough votes to swing the election to him, Trump remains fixated on the mail-in votes that were counted late in the evening on Election Day in many states, eroding a larger-than-expected Election Day turnout by Trump supporters. He presented several charts showing the changes in the presidential vote counts — including those in swing states such as Pennsylvania — as election night wore on into the wee hours of the morning.

  “Our elections are rigged” he said. “People say, ‘Oh, just focus on the future.’ You can’t focus on the future when this happens.”

  Later, the former president asserted: “I don’t believe that a message of defund the police, open borders, sanctuary cities, no freedom of speech … gets 50% of the vote. I think you get 50% because [Democrats] cheat like hell in the elections … and that’s what they want to do to the whole country.”

  Possible Wuhan Lab Leak

  Denounced by Democrats and the media as a racist for blaming China for COVID-19, Trump feels vindicated as evidence emerges suggesting that the virus might have leaked from a Chinese virology lab in Wuhan. But he believes it was unintentional, likely a product of “gross incompetence.” What was intentional, in Trump’s mind, was the decision by Chinese leaders to allow its citizens to travel globally, which spread the pandemic. Trump has called for countries to cancel their debts to China as part of a down payment on a future reparations plan that he suggests ought to total some $10 trillion.

  Trump said COVID-19 has exacted prices and affected history in ways that may be hard to measure. Before the pandemic, he said, he “had a great relationship with” with Chinese General Secretary Xi Jinping. But the “China virus killed all of that. … [It] killed a lot of people, it also killed my relationship [with Xi].”

  Boycotting the 2022 China Olympics

  Trump said he would not pull America out of the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing and neighboring Hebei province because it would be “unfair to the athletes.”

  Describing the Olympics as “peanuts,” Trump also suggested that  a boycott would be seen around the world as “sour grapes.”

  “I see it both ways,” he added, “but I would not do that. … You go. You compete. You win.”

  The Border and Central America Policy

  Trump said the Biden administration has “totally lost control” of the U.S.-Mexico border. He also questions the wisdom of the  administration’s plan to provide several billion dollars in aid to the Central American countries from which immigrants are flowing. “I refused to give them money, and their signs [say], ‘We love Trump, Trump won.’ They’re booing [Vice President Kamala Harris].” Meanwhile, “instead of saying we’re not going to pay you, [the Biden administration is] giving them $4 billion.

  “I treated them so tough, and they liked me,” he said, adding that the Biden administration “treats them weakly.”

  The Durham Probe

  Trump asked, rhetorically, about the status of the federal probe into the origins of Russiagate led by Special Counsel John Durham: “Where the hell is Durham? Is that an embarrassment, or what? I wonder if Durham’s ever even going to come out with a report.

  “They have him scared,” Trump continued. “Probably come out with a bad report. When I heard that he was going to come out with a report sometime during the Biden administration, I said, ‘You gotta be kidding.’ It’s a disgrace. In the meantime, we don’t hear anything about him.”

  During the interview, President Trump focused on the success of the candidates he endorsed, and his continued endorsements — while describing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a “stupid bastard.” Trump also touted his efforts to facilitate vaccine development through Operation Warp Speed and roll it out in short order as perhaps his greatest achievement. He also emphasized his toughness in deal-making with friends and enemies alike.

  Over the course of the more than hourlong session, Trump gave the distinct impression that he is itching to get into the presidential race in 2024. 

  Ben Weingarten is Deputy Editor of RealClearInvestigations. This interview was conducted as part of a book project on U.S.-China policy under the auspices of the Fund for American Studies’ Robert Novak Journalism Fellowships.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 20:20

• Iran Election Frontrunner Is Under US Sanctions & 3 Of 4 Presidential Candidates Are Hardliners
  Iran Election Frontrunner Is Under US Sanctions & 3 Of 4 Presidential Candidates Are Hardliners

  Iranians are voting nationwide Friday as longtime president Hassan Rouhani – the well-known moderate who negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) – is on his way out after having served his limit of two terms. His time in office will expire on August 3rd. 

  There are widespread reports of much lower than expected turnout even after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei pleaded for people to go to the polls as he cast his vote Friday morning in Tehran. “Each vote counts… come and vote and choose your president,” he said. “This is important for the future of your country.”

  As we detailed earlier current head of the judiciary ultraconservative Ebrahim Raisi – also seen as a close ally of Khamenei – is favored to win. Low turnout is expected to help him, particularly after years of sanctions have resulted in widespread voter apathy, extreme economic hardship, and continued pandemic fears – seen also as factors keeping people at home. 

  

  “I urge everyone with any political view to vote,” Raisi declared Friday after casting his ballot. “Our people’s grievances over shortcomings are real, but if it is the reason for not participating, then it is wrong.” Ironically Raisi, who will likely be the next leader of the Islamic Republic, is currently under US sanctions.

  A BBC profile of the current remaining four candidates for the Iranian presidency- after three dropped out on Thursday – also helps add context to current accusations coming from the West that this election is “rigged” in favor of hardliners:

  “Whether I vote or not, someone has already been elected,” a Tehran shopkeeper was quoted by AFP news agency as saying. “They organize the elections for the media.”

  Another, named as Vahid, a woodcraft teacher in the city, told Reuters he would vote “because my leader [Ayatollah Khamenei] wants me to”.

  The elections coincide with the latest round of talks in Vienna aimed at reviving the accord, which saw Iran agree to limit its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.

  Almost 600 hopefuls, including 40 women, registered for the election.

  But in the end only seven men were approved last month by the 12 jurists and theologians on the hardline Guardian Council, an unelected body that has the ultimate decision with regard to candidates’ qualifications.

  Given that the final candidates were filtered through the Islamic conservative Guardian Council, the only candidate remaining that’s widely seen as “moderate” is 64-year old Abdolnaser Hemmati, who has been governor of the Central Bank of Iran since 2018.

  Ebrahim Raisi, a senior cleric and the current chief justice of Iran, is predicted to win the presidency after the country’s Guardian Council barred most reformist candidates from running in the electionhttps://t.co/INvBfPjb5x

  — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The other two candidates which are seen as having much less name recognition, Mohsen Rezai and Amirhossein Qazizadeh Hashemi, are both hardliners.

  Importantly, a Raisi victory (now looking very likely) could bring the restored JCPOA nuclear deal into further doubt. The Ayatollah previously warned that Iran would not tolerate negotiations “dragging on” – however a mitigating factor is likely to be the US showing signs that it’s ready to drop or relax sanctions. 

  Iran elections:

  59 million Iranians are entitled to vote
  The ultraconservative party already pegged to “win”
  “Polling and analysts” put hard-line judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi as the dominant front-runner https://t.co/01utVLavqJ

  — Tracy (𝕮𝖍𝖎) (@chigrl) June 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The IAEA this week stated that “Everyone knows that, at this point, it will be necessary to wait for the new Iranian government” before a deal can be finalized in Vienna.

  

  Meanwhile the White House reportedly wants to see a Vienna deal reached prior to the next Iranian president taking office, according to Axios. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 20:00

• Is There A Silver Lining In The PC Woke Snowflake Cancel Culture?
  Is There A Silver Lining In The PC Woke Snowflake Cancel Culture?

  Authored by Walter Block via InternationalMan.com,

  Optimists are always looking for silver linings in dark clouds. Can any such thing be discerned in our present cultural revolution of politically correct virtue signaling wokeism?

  

  First, let us consider, well, briefly mention, the clouds.

  • California is reducing mathematics studies because this discipline has a disparate impact on subcategories of its student population.

  • Women are now welcomed in the U.S. military even though they cannot pass the previously established tests of physical ability. Due to disparate results, these exams have been modified; that is, weakened.

  • Asian Americans must deal with a strict upper limit in admissions to such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, no matter that their abilities predict great success than other ethnic groups.

  • No longer is admission to prestigious centers of learning such as the Bronx High School of Science based on examinations. Disparate impact once again raises its ugly head.

  Where can any silver lining be perceived in this cultural morass, of which the above instances are the merest tip of the proverbial iceberg? Do not these phenomena not weaken our country in all sorts of ways, physically, psychologically, emotionally, intellectually? Do they not set up all sorts of divisiveness, where a certain gender and several ethnic groups feel they are being victimized in a myriad of ways?

  Yes, that is precisely the point. When looked at from one perspective, these indeed look like dire consequences. But when seen from a different viewpoint, they can appear to be benevolent.

  Do you know those optical illusions where from one perspective, a drawing looks like one thing, from another, something entirely different? Something of the same sort is occurring in this case.

  Pray tell, then, from what viewpoint could the weakening of our country possibly look like a good idea?

  It is from the point of view of foreign policy that is from where. Now, to be sure, in the perspective of many people, warmongers, and such, U.S. intervention in national affairs has been an unmitigated success. But in the viewpoint of others, American adventurism, all around the third rock from the Sun, has been a disaster.

  Consider the following:

  • The U.S. lost the war in Viet Nam, an area where it had no business occupying in the first place. Vast numbers of innocents perished as a result.

  • The U.S. has spent almost 20 years in Afghanistan and will now suffer an ignominious departure; again, another loss, with great loss of life.

  • The U.S. has some 800 military bases in roughly 130 countries (there are only a few more than 200 in the entire world, so this comprises a majority). Thus, whenever any difficulties arise anywhere globally, the U.S. is involved, willy-nilly.

  • The U.S. has supported military dictatorships the world over, worsening conditions for millions of innocent people; examples are too numerous to mention

  • The U.S. has intervened in the internal affairs of numerous nations, again too many to mention, much to the deterioration of these client states.

  If you think that the U.S. has been a force for good, then there is no silver lining in its weakening, intellectually, militarily, economically. However, if it is your opinion that this experience has been a disaster for this country and numerous other nations, then its waning abilities in these areas, due to our own cultural revolution, indeed constitutes a silver lining.

  *  *  *

  The wave of political correctness and liberal group-think has taken the US by storm. The effort to silence opposing viewpoints and free speech will continue to accelerate. That’s why Doug Casey has prepared a timely video on surviving this modern American trend. In it Doug exposes the lies and mainstream bias that’s poisoning America… Click here to watch it now.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 19:40

• Biden Orders Major Reversal Of Trump's Missile Battery Build-Up In Gulf
  Biden Orders Major Reversal Of Trump’s Missile Battery Build-Up In Gulf

  A major “realignment” of US defense priorities is resulting in a new extended drawdown of troops, aircraft, and anti-aircraft missiles from the Middle East, The Wall Street journal says in a new report, especially a prior missile battery build-up under Trump in Saudi Arabia.

  “The Pentagon is pulling approximately eight Patriot antimissile batteries from countries including Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, according to officials,” the report details. “Another antimissile system known as a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad system, is being withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and jet fighter squadrons assigned to the region are being reduced, those officials said.”

  

  Early this month the Saudi crown prince was informed of the reduction of equipment and personnel on Saudi soil in a phone call by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin – where most of the military hardware is being pulled from. The prior Trump administration had begun sending tons of additional hardware there following the September 2019 drone and missile attack on the Saudi Aramco oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais in eastern Saudi Arabia.

  Simultaneously the ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan is said to be well over half complete, also as more troops are expected to depart Iraq.  

  US officials told WSJ that the move reflects a Biden administration belief that Iran is no longer the dominating major threat to US security interests in the region:

  A senior defense official said the equipment withdrawals amount to a return to a more traditional level of defense for the region. Under former President Donald Trump, the U.S. actively deployed defensive systems as well as troops, jet fighter squadrons and naval warships to support its maximum pressure campaign against Iran.

  The hardware hasn’t deterred Iran or its proxies from destabilizing actions, officials said. Saudi Arabia also has improved its defensive capabilities, intercepting most rocket attacks on its own, they said.

  For Biden’s Pentagon, China and Russia have become the top priority with Iran taking a far backseat.  This is spelled out in the report as follows: “The Biden administration is sharply reducing the number of U.S. antimissile systems in the Middle East in a major realignment of its military footprint there as it focuses the armed services on challenges from China and Russia, administration officials said.”

  Hawks have long argued, however, that a broader US retreat from the Middle East would cede influence to Russia and its allies, also as proliferation of Russian anti-air systems increases – with the example of Turkey and its receiving S-400s remaining a hot, contentious issue in US-Turkey relations at the moment.

  

  Late this week Axios revealed that the White House is hoping to push through a restored Iranian nuclear deal in Vienna, now amid the 6th round of talks, before the next Iranian president takes office by August 3rd. A restored JCPOA deal would no doubt put the Islamic Republic further down the list of ‘threat priorities’ for the US should it go through. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 19:20

• Gen. Milley Says China Has "Ways To Go" Before It Can Take Taiwan
  Gen. Milley Says China Has “Ways To Go” Before It Can Take Taiwan

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com, 

  Despite the constant hype around a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley believes China has a “ways to go” when it comes to developing the capability to take the island.

  “My assessment, in terms of capability, I think China has a ways to go to develop the actual, no-kidding capability to conduct military operations to seize through military means the entire island of Taiwan, if they wanted to do that,” Milley told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

  

  Milley said he doesn’t believe China will try to take Taiwan anytime soon. “I think there’s little intent right now or motivation to do it militarily. There’s no reason to do it militarily, and they know that. So, I think the probability is probably low, in the immediate, near-term future,” he said.

  Also on Thursday, a State Department official touted the US and Taiwan’s “porcupine” strategy. The idea of the “porcupine” approach is to continue arming Taiwan, so the cost for China to take the island by force becomes greater and greater. This strategy bodes well for the US arms industry.

  Taiwan recently signed contracts worth $1.75 billion for Lockheed Martin-made rocket system and a Boeing-made missile system. The weapons sale was approved by the Trump administration last October.

  The government of Taiwan and US weapons makers fund many of the same think tanks in Washington. For example, the hawkish Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank gets funding from most of the US’s major arms makers as well as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, Taiwan’s de facto embassy in Washington.

  The Pentagon recently finished a 100-day task force review of its China policy that was led by Ely Ratner, a former CNAS employee who was appointed as a special advisor to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the former Raytheon employee. While most of the task force’s recommendations were kept classified, it’s safe to assume that it called to continue the tradition of arming Taiwan.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 19:00

• Biden Wants Nuke Deal Done Before Iran's New President Takes Office
  Biden Wants Nuke Deal Done Before Iran’s New President Takes Office

  Now after six rounds of talks in Vienna, hopes for a restored nuclear deal are looking dimmer given the crucial “wild card” issue of Iran’s ongoing presidential election, also as the Ayatollah warned a full month ago that he wouldn’t wouldn’t let the talks “drag on” toward no definite rapid end goal.

  Iranians took to the polls Friday in the nationwide vote; however, turnout was widely reported as much lower than expected as seven candidates on Thursday had been whittled down to four – with three out of the four being considered Islamic hardliners. The increasing likelihood of an Ebrahim Raisi victory has Washington very worried. The 60-year old head of Iran’s judiciary is considered the most hardline candidate, and also a close political ally of Ayatollah Khamenei. 

  According to new reporting in Axios on Friday, the Biden White House is pushing to finalize a deal before a new president takes office. Current President Hassan Rouhani’s term ends August 3rd, giving negotiators in Vienna just a matter of weeks.

  

  Should a new – especially hardline – president take office if talks are sill to be dragging on later into summer, it becomes much more likely that a new leader in Tehran would abandon the talks. Citing a US administration official, Axios writes:

  The official said it would be “concerning” if talks dragged on into early August, when Iran’s transition is due to take place. “If we don’t have a deal before a new government is formed, I think that would raise serious questions about how achievable it’s going to be,” the official said.

  Of note is that “Analysts and some diplomats involved in the negotiations have long said it would be easier to reach a deal with the outgoing administration than with a newly inaugurated government, particularly one led by Raisi,” according to Axios. 

  Here’s more of what the unnamed US official had to say, per the report:

  • “We don’t have infinite time to get this done. So I think we’ll know — I don’t want to give a timeline — but we’ll know it when time has run up and we’ve concluded that it can’t reached within a reasonable time,” the official said.
  • “I’m not predicting that,” the official added, noting that Iran was “engaged seriously” and a deal could be reached within a few weeks. But the U.S. does not intend to continue negotiations for months and months, “and I think the Iranians would say the same.”
  • “Our whole view of this, informed by what we’re being told by the Iranians, is that the elections are not a factor, that the decision-making will continue before and after the elections and so things will not be interrupted as a result of the election,” the official said.

  Snr. EU official today : We are now almost finishing the 6th round… Today is presidential elections in #Iran. I think it is important to mention that we are negotiating today normally just like any other day. #IranElection2021 #JCPOA https://t.co/5oDfoD5Fe6

  — Hannahkaviani هانا کاویانی (@Hannahkaviani) June 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Interestingly the IAEA is pushing for the opposite, with IAEA chief Rafael Grossi saying in an interview days ago with an Italian daily paper that “Everyone knows that, at this point, it will be necessary to wait for the new Iranian government.”

  A month ago, it was the Iranian side issuing overly-optimistic reports that a deal would be reached prior to the new Iranian president being sworn into office. Crucially Rouhani is considered a moderate, also given he was the original Iranian leader who helped broker the 2015 JCPOA. The hardline faction in Iranian politics long viewed any attempts to negotiate a deal with the West with deep suspicions, which were renewed after in May 2018 Trump dropped US participation in the deal and began slapping on sanctions. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 18:40

• IRS Denies Tax-Exemption To Texas Religious Group Because Prayer, Bible Reading Boost the Republican Party
  IRS Denies Tax-Exemption To Texas Religious Group Because Prayer, Bible Reading Boost the Republican Party

  Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  An IRS official denied tax-exempt status to a Texas group that encourages church members to pray for state and national leaders regardless of their party affiliation because it benefits “the private interests of the [Republican] Party.”

  “You do not qualify as an organization described in IRS Section 501(c)(3). You engage in prohibited political campaign intervention,” wrote Stephen A. Martin, Director of the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements in a May 18 letter (pdf) to Christians Engaged, the Garland, Texas-based prayer group recognized by Texas officials as tax-exempt.

  “You are also not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes within the meaning of Section 50l (c)(3), because you operate for a substantial non-exempt private purpose and for the private interests of the D party,” Martin said.

  

  The “D party” is a reference to the Republican Party, according to a novel “Legend” Martin provided at the top of his letter to the Texas Group.

  Martin’s letter was made public Wednesday by the First Liberty Institute, a Plano, Texas-based public interest law firm that specializes in religious freedom litigation.

  Martin also noted that the group’s activities “educate believers on national issues that are central to their belief in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God,” Martin explained.

  “Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental, including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations,” he said.

  “The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the D party and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption under lRS Section 50I(c)(3),” he said.

  Christians Engaged President Bunni Pounds said in a statement issued by the First Liberty Institute that “we just want to encourage more people to vote and participate in the political process.  How can anyone be against that?”

  First Liberty Institute is appealing Martin’s decision on behalf of Christians Engaged.

  “The IRS states in an official letter that Biblical values are exclusively Republican. That might be news to President Joe Biden, who is often described as basing his political ideology on his religious beliefs,” said First Liberty Institute Counsel Lea Patterson in the statement.

  “Only a politicized IRS could see Americans who pray for their nation, vote in every election, and work to engage others in the political process as a threat. The IRS violated its own regulations in denying tax exempt status because Christians Engaged teaches biblical values.”

  In the appeal letter, First Liberty said, “By finding that Christians Engaged does not meet the operational test, Director Martin errs in three ways 1) he invents a nonexistent requirement that exempt organizations be neutral on public policy issues; 2) he incorrectly concludes that Christians Engaged primarily serves private, nonexempt purposes rather than public, exempt purposes because he thinks its beliefs overlap with the Republican Party’s policy positions; and 3) he violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech, and Free Exercise, and Establishment clauses by engaging in both viewpoint discrimination and religious discrimination.”

  Martin’s letter and decision are certain to ignite a new firestorm of protests among congressional Republicans, conservative and religious freedom advocacy groups, and civil liberties defenders, as happened during President Barack Obama’s Oval Office tenure.

  The IRS under Obama singled out hundreds of conservative, Tea Party, and evangelical tax-exemption applicants for special treatment that included long delays and multiple requests for detailed information about the beliefs and activities of officials associated with the groups.

  Multiple lawsuits were filed against the IRS by such groups and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed in two separate settlements to compensate them for undisclosed amounts.

  The DOJ also acknowledged that the IRS had targeted the groups on the basis of their political and religious activities and beliefs for “heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays.”

  “The act of praying for our country and our leaders is about the most non-partisan and patriotic thing that Americans can do. Millions of citizens do it every day,” Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) told The Epoch Times Wednesday.

  “The IRS was wrong to deny tax exempt status based on the false belief that the Bible somehow only belongs to one political party. The IRS still has a long way to go to ensure religious liberty for all,” Budd added.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 18:20

• Family Of Top Biden Officials Find Jobs Across Administration Despite 'No Nepotism' Pledge
  Family Of Top Biden Officials Find Jobs Across Administration Despite ‘No Nepotism’ Pledge

  During his tenure in office, President Trump faced incessant criticism from the media for hiring family members – including his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner – and placing friends in positions of authority within his administration.

  But just as President Joe Biden has ripped off many aspects of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and rhetoric, top officials in his administration have shown little compunction about hiring family members, despite Biden’s promise that nepotism wouldn’t be a feature of his administration.

  

  Steve Ricchetti

  According to a Washington Post report from Friday, during the first few months of Biden’s presidency, at least five children of his top aides have secured coveted jobs in the new administration. They include two sons and a daughter of a White House counselor, the daughter of a deputy White House chief of staff, and the daughter of Biden’s director of presidential personnel. The pattern continued this week when the Treasury Department announced that it had hired JJ Ricchetti, son of Biden counselor Steve Ricchetti.

  A handful of ethics experts told WaPo that it was “disappointing” to see the Biden Administration embrace cronyism, just like most of his predecessors.

  “While it may not be as bad as appointing your son or daughter to a top government post as Trump did with Jared and Ivanka, it is still bad,” said Walter Shaub, who served as director of the Office of Government Ethics from 2013-2017. “‘Not as bad as Trump’ cannot be the new standard.”

  Other relatives of top Biden aides also have secured high-level administration jobs or nominations, including the wife of White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain and the sister of White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

  Federal law generally prohibits government officials from directly hiring, or encouraging the hiring, of close relatives, however there is no evidence that any of the Biden administration officials named above have directly intervened in the process, according to WaPo. The White House maintains that everyone in the administration has been well-qualified for their positions.

  “The president has instituted the highest ethical standards of anyone to ever hold this office,” deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates said. “And he’s proud to have staffed the most diverse administration in American history with well-qualified public servants who reflect his values.”

  But the hiring of senior aides’ children remains alarming to ethics experts, because it suggests that people with ties to high-ranking public servants might be getting an advantage over similarly qualified people.

  “In a country that had just come through a pandemic, how can these children of political appointees be the only people who are qualified for employment?” Shaub said.

  Elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy, some of the “more experienced” relatives of top officials hold other higher-level jobs.

  Steve Ricchetti’s son Daniel Ricchetti is a senior adviser in the office of the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. He previously worked for seven years on the staff of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, most recently as a policy analyst.

  Cathy Russell, the director of presidential personnel in the White House, has a daughter, Sarah Donilon, who graduated college in 2019 and works in the White House National Security Council. Sarah Donilon’s uncle, Mike Donilon, is a senior adviser to Biden in the White House. Russell’s office does not oversee hiring at the White House or NSC, according to a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

  The official said those hired were well-qualified applicants and cited examples of how their experience levels were commensurate with some of their predecessors.

  Sarah Donilon, for example, worked as a McCain Institute Fellow with Kurt Campbell, the National Security Council coordinator for the Indo Pacific, with whom she now works in the White House, the White House official said. The official also said the Biden administration places a priority on hiring former campaign volunteers and that J.J. Ricchetti is a former volunteer. Julia Reed earned praise from Biden aides for her work on the advance staff of his presidential campaign.

  Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office implementing ethics rules that went further than the Obama administration’s policies. But nothing in the regulations bars the administration from hiring people who are related to White House officials. As WaPo adds, for Biden, family has been central to his decades-long political ascent. His sister, Valerie Biden Owens, has been perhaps his most influential aide, managing his campaigns for local, state and national office over the years. Additionally, the tragic deaths of his wife and infant daughter in a 1972 car crash, and his son Beau, who succumbed to brain cancer in 2015, have become core pieces of his political identity.

  But just because Hunter Biden doesn’t have an office in the West Wing doesn’t mean Biden didn’t mislead the public about the role family members of senior officials would play in his administration.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 18:00

• Questions About the FBI's Role In 1/6 Are Mocked Because The FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media
  Questions About the FBI’s Role In 1/6 Are Mocked Because The FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media

  Authored by Glenn Greenwald via greenwald.substack.com,

  The axis of liberal media outlets and their allied activist groups — CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, Media Matters — are in an angry uproar over a recent report questioning the foreknowledge and involvement of the FBI in the January 6 Capitol riot. As soon as that new report was published on Monday, a consensus instantly emerged in these liberal media precincts that this is an unhinged, ignorant and insane conspiracy theory that deserves no consideration.

  

  The original report, published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the 1/6 investigation — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters — and noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted. While low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail, many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.

  The implications of these facts are obvious. It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6 riot (just as the U.S. intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues of the 9/11 attack but, according to their excuse, tragically failed to “connect the dots”). There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some if not all of these groups — which it has been warning for years pose a grave national security threat — with informants and/or undercover spies. It is known that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by Three Percenters members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was shaped and driven by what The Wall Street Journal reported were the FBI’s “undercover agents and confidential informants.”

  

  What would be shocking and strange is not if the FBI had embedded informants and other infiltrators in the groups planning the January 6 Capitol riot. What would be shocking and strange — bizarre and inexplicable — is if the FBI did not have those groups under tight control. And yet the suggestion that FBI informants may have played some role in the planning of the January 6 riot was instantly depicted as something akin to, say, 9/11 truth theories or questions about the CIA’s role in JFK’s assassination or, until a few weeks ago, the COVID lab-leak theory: as something that, from the perspective of Respectable Serious Circles, only a barely-sane, tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatic would even entertain.

  This reaction is particularly confounding given how often the FBI did exactly this during the first War on Terror, and how commonplace discussions of this tactic were in mainstream liberal circles. Over the last decade, I reported on countless cases for The Guardian and The Intercept where the FBI targeted some young American Muslims they viewed as easily manipulated — due to financial distress, emotional problems, or both — and then deployed informants and undercover agents to dupe them into agreeing to join terrorist plots that had been created, designed and funded by the FBI itself, only to then congratulate themselves for breaking up the plot which they themselves initiated. As I asked in one headline about a particularly egregious entrapment case: “Why Does the FBI Have to Manufacture its Own Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave Threats?”

  In 2011, Mother Jones published an outstanding, lengthy investigation by reporter Trevor Aaronson, entitled “The Informations,” which asked: “The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?” Aaronson covered numerous similar cases for The Intercept where the FBI designed, directed and even funded the terror plots and other criminal rings they then boasted of disrupting. A widely praised TEDTalk by Aaronson, which, in the words of organizers, “reveals a disturbing FBI practice that breeds terrorist plots by exploiting Muslim-Americans with mental health problems,” featured this central claim: “There’s an organization responsible for more terrorism plots in the United States than al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab and ISIS combined: The FBI.”

  

  So far from being some warped conspiracy theory, that the FBI purposely targets vulnerable people and infiltrates groups in order to create attacks and direct targets to engage in them is indisputably true, well established, and a commonly reported fact in mainstream liberal media. Exactly that has been happening for decades.

  ---

  Yet the DNC-loyal sector of the corporate media reacted to the Revolver News article and Carlson’s segment which raised these questions as though they were positing something that no sentient being could possibly regard as viable. CNN — which spent years leading its viewers to believe that the Kremlin controlled the U.S. Government through sexual and financial blackmail — published what they labeled a “fact-check” that denounced this as a “haywire theory” that “is nothing more than a conspiratorial web of unproven claims, half-truths and inaccurate drivel about perceived bombshells in court filings.”

  As it usually does, The Washington Post — which told Americans that Russians had invaded the U.S. electricity grid and that a huge army of Kremlin-loyal American writers was shaping our discourse — echoed the instant CNN/liberal consensus by mocking it as “Tucker Carlson’s wild, baseless theory,” claiming that “it’s the kind of suggestion journalists in other organizations would quite possibly be fired for if they sought to push it nearly as hard.” The standard liberal blob of HuffPost/ DailyBeast/ BusinessInsider all recited from the herd script. “A laughable conspiracy theory,” chortled The Huffington Post, who has done more to help the FBI find citizens allegedly at the Capitol riot than any local law enforcement agency.

  

  What accounts for this furious liberal #Resistance to questioning the FBI’s role in the January 6 riot and asking whether there are vital facts that are being concealed? There was one minor analytical flaw in both the Revolver News article and Carlson segment that they seized on by pretending that it was central to the question rather than what it was: a completely ancillary distraction. It is true that it is highly unlikely, probably close to impossible, that the FBI would refer to someone they were directing or collaborating with as an “unindicted co-conspirator” because, by definition, someone working at the behest of the FBI would not be a “conspirator” in a plot since they would lack the necessary intent to forward that plot (their intent, instead, is to tell the FBI what is being plotted). CNN hauled out some career federal prosecutor and current corporate lawyer, their “Senior Legal Analyst” Elie Honig, to spend five minutes pretending that this single-handedly destroys the case.

  But rather than some devastating theory-destroying point, this is ultimately irrelevant to the evidence marshaled by Revolver News. While it is true that “unindicted co-conspirator” almost certainly does not refer to FBI informants or operatives, the numerous references to Person-1, Person-2, etc. very well could [indeed, in the case of the FBI-directed plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, CHS-1, CHS-2, etc. (confidential human source) is how the FBI informants driving that plot were referenced]. These are common tactics that the FBI uses to reference the acts of their own unindicted informants without revealing their identity. And while some of the unnamed-but-referenced people in the charging documents are known (one is the spouse one of those charged), several are not.

  The questions raised by the Revolver News reporting, which none of these smug FBI defenders and guardians of the liberal consensus can answer, remain:

  • How is it remotely credible that the FBI did not have informants in these three groups that they have been identifying as major threats for years, especially given the reporting that the leader of the Proud Boys — conveniently arrested the day before January 6 — was an FBI informant in the past, along with the confirmed reporting that the FBI had multiple informants in the Michigan Three Percenters case?

  • Why are low-level protesters being charged with major crimes while the alleged organizers of this riot and the leaders of these groups have not been?

  • Why are enormous amounts of video surveillance footage from January 6 still being concealed?

  • What happened to the alleged planting of pipe bombs near the Capitol?

  • Why did the FBI not take more aggressive action given the once-denied but now-confirmed fact that the social media platform Parler sent the FBI advanced warnings of specific plots to use violence at the Capitol?

  A big deal:@RepMaloney: “Committee has obtained docs showing that … Parler sent the FBI evidence of planned violence in DC on January 6. Parlor referred this content to FBI for investigation OVER 50 TIMES” including “specific threats of violence being planned at the Capitol.” pic.twitter.com/67ZsMxyPJn

  — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) June 15, 2021

   

  If the FBI had advanced knowledge of what was being plotted yet did nothing to stop the attack, it raises numerous possibilities about why that is. It could be that they just had yet another “intelligence failure” of the kind that they claimed caused them to miss the 9/11 attack and therefore need massive new surveillance authorities, budget increases, and new Patriot-Act-type laws to fix it. It could be that they allowed the riot to happen because they did not take it seriously enough or because some of them supported the cause behind it, or because they realized that there would be benefits to the security state if it happened. Or it could be that they were using those operatives under their control to plot with, direct, and drive the attack — as they have done so many times in the past — and allowed it to happen out of either negligence or intent.

  Nobody is claiming to know the answers to those questions, including Revolver News, Carlson, or anyone else. Instead, they are doing the work of actual journalists — pointing out the gaping holes in the public record about what we do and do not know about an event that is being exploited to launch a new domestic War on Terror, prompt massive new police and security state spending, and empower and justify new domestic surveillance and censorship authorities. Anyone not asking these questions or, worse, trying to delegitmize them, is a propagandist and has no business calling themselves a journalist.

  ---

  But why does this description apply to so many in the undifferentiated liberal corporate media blob, the employees who work for media corporations and barely pretend any longer to conceal their DNC-supporting posture? One answer is that, as a result of the Trump years, they now revere security state institutions like the FBI and CIA, and are thus reflexively angered by suggestion that these agencies may be less than truthful in their statements and less than honorable in their conduct:

  

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsBut the primary reason is that their newsrooms are filled with former FBI operatives, CIA agents, and other former employees of the security state. CNN has more FBI agents and federal prosecutors working for it than anyone outside of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI headquarters in Washington. When they go to analyze any matters involving the FBI, they rely on career FBI agents and officials to tell them what to think. And you’ll never guess what these FBI operatives tell them: trust the FBI; only malicious conspiracists wonder if the FBI is lying and has been engaged in treachery; those who malign the FBI are liars. Here is just one of CNN’s countless FBI operatives doing her job:

  

  

  In virtually every segment that they have done since the Revolver News article was published, CNN, in order to angrily mock questions about the FBI, brings on FBI officials like former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe — who got caught lying to the FBI and barely escaped prosecution for it — to insist that the honorable agency would never do any such thing:

  CHRIS CUOMO: Let’s talk about what is true, and not true, in this scenario. Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

  “Person one, person two, unindicted co-conspirator, those are you guys. Those are – those are Feds, undercover.” What’s the reality?

  ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: The reality, Chris, is that we’re going to – we’re going to go into, very briefly, a little law lesson here, because I am convinced that your viewers are smarter than Tucker Carlson.

  Just think about a purported news outlet saying this: Let’s talk about what is true, and not true, in this scenario. Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

  While MSNBC prefers ex-CIA officials like John Brennan, CNN is practically overrun with former FBI officials, agents and operatives. But NBC News is also the home to FBI caricatures like this:

  

  Look at these FBI cartoons these media corporations employ. Then they haul them out to tell everyone that only malignant conspiracists and insane losers would ponder the possibility that the FBI was engaged in deceit or other forms of manipulation regarding an event that has taken on central importance in their quest for more power and money. And their liberal viewers and the liberal journalists who watch these networks nod in agreement because they think they are hearing from the real, honest experts: the security state agents they have been trained to revere.

  But all the mockery in the world does not make these questions disappear. Of course the FBI was infiltrating the groups they claim were behind these attacks. There may be good reasons why that did not enable the FBI to stop this riot or why they have not yet indicted these ringleaders. But those answers are not yet known. And gullible conspiracists are not the ones who want answers to these questions but, instead, are the ones doing everything possible to protect the FBI from having to provide them.

  ---

  To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe and/or obtain a gift subscription for others

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 17:40